ISS research paper template - EUR
Graduate School of Development Studies
A Research Paper presented by:
Sébastien Fekete
(Canada)
In partial fulfilment of the requirements for obtaining the degree of
MASTERS OF ARTS IN DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
Specialization:
Human Rights and Social Justice
HDS
Members of the examining committee:
Dr. Karin Arts (supervisor)
Dr. Rachel Kurian (reader)
The Hague, the Netherlands
November 11, 2009
Disclaimer:
This document represents part of the author’s study programme while at the Institute of Social Studies. The views stated therein are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Institute.
Research papers are not made available for circulation outside of the Institute.
Inquiries:
Postal address: Institute of Social Studies
P.O. Box 29776
2502 LT The Hague
The Netherlands
Location: Kortenaerkade 12
2518 AX The Hague
The Netherlands
Telephone: +31 70 426 0460
Fax: +31 70 426 0799
Table of Contents
List of Figures vi
List of Acronyms vii
Abstract viii
Relevance to Development Studies viii
Keywords viii
Acknowledgements ix
Chapter 1: Oil Sand Development: An Introduction
1. Oil Sands in Alberta, Canada
The Resource 10
Declining Oil Reserves 10
Investment & Development in the Oil Sands 11
Provincial Management of Natural Resources 11
Consultation Policy with Indigenous Peoples 12
The Current Situation 13
2. One Story Four Versions
The Indigenous Peoples’ Version 13
The NGO’s Version 14
The Provincial Government’s Version 15
The Corporate Version 16
3. Concluding Remarks 17
Chapter 2: The Research Project: Context, Problem Statement, Objectives and Research Questions
1. Contextualizing the Problem
Globalization: A Precursor to Corporate
Human Rights Violations 19
Canada’s Human Rights Record: Example of the
Lubicon Indian Nation 19
2. Problem Statement
Clashing Interests Surrounding Oil Sands Extraction 21
3. Relevance, Justification and Objectives
Relevance: Overcoming a Troubled Past 22
Justification 22
Objective 23
4. Research Questions
Main Question 23
Sub-Questions 24
5. Concluding Remarks 24
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework and Methodology
1. Indigenous Human Rights
State as a Duty Bearer 25
Binding Obligations 26
Other Instruments that Aim at Protecting Indigenous Peoples 26
2. Corporations and Human Rights
A Shift of Attention 28
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as a Phenomenon 28
Laws Guiding Corporations 30
3. Regimes and Voluntary Mechanisms Guiding Corporate Conduct
OECD Guidelines 30
Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational
Enterprises and Social Policy 31
UN Norms on the Responsibilities for Transnational
Corporations and other Business Enterprises with
Regard to Human Rights 31
International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation
Association (IPIECA) 31
The Global Reporting Initiative 32
UN Global Compact 32
4. Methodology
Application of Theoretical Framework 33
5. Methods & Limitations
Methods 34
Limitations 35
6. Concluding Remarks 36
Chapter 4: Unearthing the Findings: Norms Acceptance, Legal Consciousness and the Implications for Rights Realization
1. Analyzing Sustainability Reports
Norm Acceptance 37
Nexen 37
Suncor 39
2. Norm Acceptance Translated into Action?
Nexen and Suncor Ranking 41
Legal Consciousness of Nexen and Suncor 42
Conceptualizations of Dignity and Implications for Corporate
Notions of Human Rights 43
Corporate Interactions with Human Rights
Norms & Rights Realization 44
Corporate Interactions with the Law and Implications
For the Consultation Process 45
Rationalizing Development: from a Corporate and
Regulatory Perspective 46
3. Concluding Remarks 47
Chapter 5: Concluding Observations & Further Research
1. Implications
Corporate Limitations 49
Recommendations to the Federal and Provincial Governments 51
2. Further Research
Role of NGOs 53
References 55
Bibliography 69
Appendix 1: Photos of Oil Sands 72
Appendix 2: Word Count in Sustainability Reports 74
Appendix 3: Interview Information 75
Appendix 4: NGO Survey 76
List of Figures
Figure 1: Review Sustainability Reports: Nexen (p.38)
Figure 2: Review Sustainability Reports: Suncor (p.40)
Figure 3: Socially Conscious Norms of Nexen and Suncor (p.41)
List of Acronyms
AI – Amnesty International
CERES – Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies
CLMRD – Consultation about Land Management and Resource Development
CSR – Corporate social responsibility
ERCB – Energy Resources Conservation Board
GRI – Global Reporting Initiative
ICCPR – International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
ICESCR – International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
IEN – Indigenous Environmental Network
ILO – International Labour Organization
IPIECA – International Petroleum Industry Environmental
Conservation Association
NGO – Non-Governmental Organization
NRTA – Natural Resources Transfer Act
OECD – Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
UDHR – Universal Declaration of Human Rights
UK – United Kingdom
UN – United Nations
UNCESCR – United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights
UNEP – United Nations Environment Programme
UNHRC – United Nations Human Rights Committee
US – United States
UVic – University of Victoria
WWF – World Wildlife Fund
Abstract
Corporate actors are increasingly becoming powerful entities in this era of globalization. While the state remains the primary duty bearer in protecting and realizing the rights of its citizens, corporations now have an increased role in this regard. Voluntary mechanisms guiding corporate conduct have emerged to address this fact. In Canada’s Athabasca, Peace River and Cold Lake regions, oil corporations have the increased challenge of operating on the traditional land of indigenous populations, who have been marginalized since colonization. While many indigenous groups seek protect their traditional lifestyle, activities by oil corporations seem to undermine this effort. Human rights and social responsibility norms are increasingly found in corporate policies. Yet the forms which these take are contested and considered unsatisfactory by some. This thesis seeks to identify to what extent corporations have accepted human rights and social responsibility norms, to evaluate whether norm acceptance can be clearly related to performance, to see if actions taken by oil corporations guarantee that indigenous rights are protected and determine what actions the provincial and federal governments can undertake to further complement corporate efforts.
Relevance to Development Studies
How to reconcile the seemingly contradictory ideas of sustainability and development is one of the more enduring questions in development studies. Corporations are now increasingly seen, and expected to be, agents of both. Furthermore, their financial endowments and ability to deploy resources efficiently makes them powerful agents for creating positive social change. Yet, their fundamental mandate of profit maximization may give rise to conflicting interests, thus limiting their potential to instigate and actualize socially conscious policies. Nevertheless, NGOs and the public are demanding that corporations behave ethically, which includes a respect for human rights. For corporations operating on the land of vulnerable peoples, special attention should be paid to how their activities intersect with human rights. This thesis aims to show that while voluntary mechanisms guiding corporate conduct exist, the government should be more actively involved in regulating industries, in order to protect the rights of those who may be negatively affected by operations.
Keywords
Indigenous, Aboriginal, First Nations, Canada, Alberta, Human Rights, Corporations, Suncor, Nexen, Corporate Social Responsibility, Aboriginal Relations programs, Oil Sands.
Acknowledgements
First and foremost I would like to thank my entire family. In particular my mother, whose strength and continuous support throughout my academic career has motivated me in unimaginable ways. My father, whose demand for perfection, always pushed me further. I’d like to also thank my brother for his assistance in this research, and for just being him. I love you all. Next, I would like to thank my friends, whom I love, whose support was timely and necessary: Sophie, Christine, Devon, Ravi, Marty, Mike, Marc, Justin, Sara, Scott, Hok, Mitch, Anna and Tom. I would also like to thank my colleagues, and now friends, for their input, support and astute observations which contributed to this research: Astha, Anna, Elise, Jose, Meghan, Sophie and Tom. Particular kudos goes to Thomas Clark for his critical eye and Astha Kapoor whose support and intellectual superciliousness pushed me to surpass myself. A special thanks to my supervisor Dr. Karin Arts whose gentle guidance, support, encouragement, availability and timely interventions helped shape the final product. I would also like to give special thanks to my reader, Dr. Rachel Kurian, whose input, critical feedback and willingness to engage in meaningful debate also helped shape this research. Finally, thanks goes to all those who, on some level, contributed to this research: David Coll, Tom Goldtooth, Jerry Welsh, Clayton Thomas Muller, Lloyd Martell, Darcie Park, Dr. Jeff Corntassel, Melissa Shin, Simon Dyer, Greg Gilbertson, Joel Thompson, Dave Burkhart, Brenda Erskine, Terra Simieritsch and Kimberly Nordbye.
Oil Sands Development: An Introduction
We never know the worth of water till the well is dry.
~ Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732 ~ (UNAHI, 2008: 1)
The chapter briefly describes oil sands, discusses factors that have contributed to growth in the industry, mentions how the resource is managed, and maps out positions of different stakeholders, all in order to contextualize the issue at hand.
1.1 Oil Sands in Alberta, Canada
The Resource
Oil sands, or alternatively tar sands, are a thick viscous blend of sand, water and heavy crude, which are hard and costly to extract (Edemariam, 2007). After treatment, oil sands can be converted into gasoline and diesel fuels (see Appendix 1 for photos of oil sands). The province of Alberta, Canada, is endowed with one of the largest hydrocarbon deposits in the world; estimates revealed 1.7 trillion barrels of oil in the area. However, only a fraction of this amount is economically viable for extraction due to technological constraints and current oil prices. It is generally agreed that 173 billion barrels are available, placing Alberta second to Saudi Arabia in proven reserves (Kunzig, 2009: 46). Oil sands are concentrated in the Athabasca, Peace River and Cold Lake regions, an area larger than the state of Florida (ERCB, 2009). This area is also home to several indigenous communities such as the Mikisew Cree and Athabasca Dene (Best & Hoberg, 2008). (AGS, 2009: 1)
(AGS, 2009: 1)
Declining Oil Reserves
Canada’s oil producing success was made possible by the United States’ (US) depleting reserves, pushing them into a perpetual search for secure foreign sources of oil. To meet this insatiable demand, Canada started to explore non-conventional sources. Oil sands development thus represents a huge opportunity for both countries. Incentive to fuel investment was provided by the Alberta provincial government, which maintains low royalties and taxes (Woynillowicz, 2005). Capitalizing on this opportunity, American oil companies, amongst others, integrated themselves into the Canadian market (McCullum, no year). Consequently, as of 2004, Canada is the largest supplier of foreign oil to the US (McCullum, no year: 5).
Investment & Development in the Oil Sands
The oil industry in Canada has been increasingly funding projects over the last decade. In that period, oil corporations invested $50 billion in construction. In 2008 alone, they disbursed an astounding $20 billion (Kunzig, 2009: 43-44). However, the recent financial crisis has stalled many projects. Nevertheless, Alberta Energy Minister, Mel Knight, expects that demand from China and India will rekindle interest in the oil sands, allowing for a quick recovery (Economist, 2009). As the sagging economy starts to recover, production could increase from 1.31 million barrels/day in 2008 to 3 million barrels/day in 2018, a goal projected by Alberta’s provincial government (Government of Alberta, 2009: 1).
According to former International Trade Minister Jim Peterson (2005), a drastic increase in production would not be possible if it were not for the tireless efforts of Canadian Trade Commissioners who continuously promote Alberta energy to foreign buyers and investors. Such work is done for seemingly good reasons as figures released by the Canadian Energy Research Institute indicate that, while “the federal government receives 43% of revenue from the oil sands, Alberta receives 36% ” (Guly, 2005: 13). Considering the importance of Alberta’s oil sands, it is no wonder that the former Canadian Natural Resources Minister John Efford described energy as “the cornerstone of the Canadian economy” (IEA, 2005: 1).
Provincial Management of Natural Resources
In 1930 the Canadian government passed the Natural Resources Transfer Act (NRTA), ensuring that Alberta could unilaterally decide how resources would be managed and used within its boundaries (McLeod, no year). The energy sector, which is mainly driven by resource extraction, is structured to guarantee provinces will have jurisdiction over their own energy matters. The current Alberta Premier, Ed Stelmach, was quoted as saying to a group of oil executives, “it’s my belief that when government attempts to manipulate the free market, bad things happen” (Kunzig, 2009: 58-59). Not surprisingly, Alberta’s strategy is largely based on having the industry, or companies, regulate themselves (Edemariam, 2007).
Consultation Policy with Indigenous Peoples[1]
The province of Alberta has the constitutional authorization to administer crown lands and develop its resources in a way that benefits its populace most. Alberta also recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples, and bestows the duty to consult onto corporations. ‘Consultation about Land Management and Resource Development (CLMRD)’ intends to foster dialogue and build trust, especially between industry and indigenous groups. The policy was developed in conjunction with indigenous groups and industry in 2005, and is set to be reviewed in 2009.
Alberta expects the industry to act in good faith and, inform those who may be affected by their activities. Actions must be taken to minimize the effects of damage. Alberta also expects indigenous peoples to participate in the implementation of the CLMRD and to highlight possible infringements on their rights. In the case where their rights may be jeopardized, solutions must be proposed so as to achieve an amicable compromise (Government of Alberta, 2005).
The Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) is an independent regulatory body whose mission is to ensure that the energy sector in Alberta is regulated in a safe, efficient manner and in the best interest of the public. The ERCB policy, Directive 056, addresses the issue of consultation. Essentially, prior to filling out an application, any proponent of an energy project must consult the potentially affected communities and address their questions or concerns. Residents affected by energy projects are encouraged to continuously participate in all phases of a project. Participation may be most beneficial at the start-up phase, as then the public may have most influence on how a project unfolds. The ECRB also recognizes Alberta’s CLMRD policy as an important guiding tool for corporations (ERCB, 2008).
All energy projects must be approved by the ERCB prior to commencement. When disputes arise between stakeholders who have conflicting interests, the ECRB mediates by using Appropriate Dispute Resolution, or through public hearings. A project may get approval only once stakeholders are satisfied with negotiation outcomes (ERCB, 2008a). In order to accommodate for local concerns the ECRB may attach special conditions to projects. In rare instances, such conditions make projects so expensive that corporations withdraw their project proposals (ERCB, 2008b).
The Current Situation
Oil sands development in Canada’s Athabasca, Cold Lake and Peace River regions is the focal point where the interests of four different stakeholders[2] intersect. The dense web of interactions between indigenous peoples, NGOs, the Alberta provincial government, and corporations is saturated with tension, arising from differing motives, interests and conceptions of reality.
1.2 One Story Four Versions
. The Indigenous Peoples’ Version
. According to Chief Jim Boucher of Fort McKay, the overall perspective of indigenous peoples is that life is simply not how it once was because the land that used to sustain them is now degraded (Appenzeller, 2004). The indigenous worldview is holistic, where individuals develop intimate relationships with the natural world surrounding them. All that is physical and spiritual is interconnected, valued and respected. Oil sands extraction is seen as hampering the integrity of a well balanced system (Castellano, 2004).
Extraction is responsible for a wide range of problems, all of which have a negative impact on indigenous livelihoods. Elders say that water is no longer drinkable, and that the tremendous amount of pollution has resulted in an inability to live off of the land. Concerns surround the water consumed by industry; which is seen as not sustainable. Indigenous peoples claim they are now unable to make use of traditional hunting grounds which, for many, continues to be the basis of their subsistence. Land has been taken over by industry and contaminated, diminishing their wealth. The industrial invasion of traditional land has also impacted wildlife (Best & Hoberg, 2008). According to locals from Fort Chipewyan, fish are found to have deformities and moose meat has an altered taste (Stainsby, no year). A Chief of the Beaver Lake Cree Nation, interviewed by the Guardian, mentioned how all these signs point to the fact that earth, the bearer of all things, is being damaged (Jowit, 2009).
Animals are not the only ones suffering. According to members of the Fort Chipewyan community, indigenous peoples have been struck by a variety of ailments, including rare forms of cancer. The province of Alberta and the media also have their part to play in this saga, and are seen to be colluding with large oil companies. The distress of the indigenous peoples is not being properly addressed because of purposeful distribution of misinformation (Stainsby, no year; Petersen, 2007).
The degree of consultation has been inadequate and is viewed as an extinguishment of their treaty rights, as expressed by George Poitras of the Mikisew Cree First Nation to the Canadian House of Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in 2009. For example, Treaty No. 8 guarantees that indigenous peoples will have the right to continue their subsistence lifestyle through hunting, trapping and fishing. Yet negative externalities from oil extraction infringe upon that right. George Poitras has equated this situation with genocide, as life, traditional land, indigenous culture and traditions are all jeopardized by oil extraction (Petersen, 2007; Canada, 2009a; Government of Canada, 2008).
In a video lobbying against oil sands development, produced by Macdonald Stainsby of the NGO Oil Sands Truth, indigenous interviewees alluded to feeling ignored and dealt with in a dismissive way when raising concerns with industry representatives (Stainsby, no year). Skepticism also surrounds the land reclamation process. Yet there is a collective expectation that industry and government should do all in their power to return the land to its original state. Indigenous groups have also voiced their discontent regarding compensation.
Overall, there is a sense of abandonment by some who are disillusioned with the situation, as they claim that industry needs come first. Demands are being made for more control over the development, or for government to impose stricter industrial regulations. As self-proclaimed protectors of the land, some indigenous groups are calling for a moratorium on oil extraction until further studies are conducted on the impacts (Stainsby, no year).
On the other hand, some indigenous peoples see oil sands as an opportunity. Chief Jim Boucher, of Fort McKay, mentioned how some indigenous peoples have benefited from oil sand development. For instance Fort McKay, in the Athabasca region, boasts an unemployment rate under 5%, is endowed with new housing facilities and lucrative community owned businesses that supply the oil sands industry (Kunzig, 2009: 44).
The NGO’s Version
Oil sands are an immense industrial project, the likes of which have never been seen before in human history (Oil Sands Truth, no year). A project of such magnitude presents many challenges that must be addressed by industry and the government, both federal and provincial alike. Other countries and financial institutions are also responsible for the negative impacts, which accrue disproportionately to local communities, as foreign investment in the area is intensifying (IEN, no year).
The production of oil sands is energy intensive. Consequently, its production is responsible for large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. This is of concern as this may impede Canada from meeting its Kyoto targets, which aim to reduce greenhouse gases emissions (IEN, no year; WWF, 2007). Compounding the problem is that oil sands development occurs after large expanses of boreal forest are cleared (Pembina Institute, 2007). Considering that boreal forests are highly effective at carbon sequestration, this may further impact climate change negatively. Moreover, the production of oil sands also requires the extraction of significant volumes of water from the Athabasca River. This is especially problematic during the low flow months of winter. During this time, fish are put under extreme stress, adding to the vulnerability of the entire ecosystem, a view presented by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development (Best & Hoberg, 2008; Mass, 2009, Pembina Institute, 2009). Pembina Institute, a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) advocating for alternative energy solutions, submitted a written document to the Federal Parliamentary Committee Hearing on Water and the Oil Sands saying that the ecosystem was threatened by leaches coming from tailings ponds, which contain many contaminants, including: copper, zinc, iron and naphthenic acids (Pembina Institute, 2009). Some consider that there is a lack of publicly available information concerning seepages, so the public continues to remain unaware of the impacts (IEN, no year).
According to the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN), oil sands extraction is also viewed as having many negative social consequences. Communities which are reliant on the environment for subsistence purposes are being deprived of their means to do so. This can partially be explained by the bioaccumulation of toxins which are being found in the food chain. This particularly affects indigenous groups, which trap, hunt and fish in the area (IEN, no year; Kairos, 2009). Relating to social impacts, the pace of development has placed excessive stress on social services. The high influx of labour into the area has meant that accommodation is often inaccessible due to prohibitively high housing prices (Oil Sands Truth, no year).
For these reasons, many NGOs insist that Alberta cease granting licenses which could lead to extraction, and to use this time to further develop measures which would address their concerns (Pembina Institute, 2007). Finally, based on a public statement released in 2009 by a conglomeration of NGOs including Kairos, Canada should sign the United Nations (UN) Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Kairos, 2009a).
The Provincial Government’s Version
According to Alberta’s Energy Strategy, the province positions itself as a responsible supplier of energy, the revenues of which benefit all Albertans (Youtube, no year; Alberta Energy, 2008; Alberta, no year). It is no surprise then that the development of energy is at the crux of the provincial economy. Countless jobs are tied to its production and positive economic spinoffs abound. In fact, revenues streaming from its production contribute to lowering taxes, which are the lowest in all of Canada. The laws of demand and supply dictate production levels; intervention in the free market is perceived as being iniquitous (Alberta Energy, 2008; Jowit, 2009).
For benefits to accrue in the long term, the provincial government believes that production must be carried out in a sustainable fashion (Alberta, no year; Youtube, 2008). Responsible energy production is tied to technology advancements which help in minimizing environmental impacts. For instance, carbon storage can be used as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Alberta Energy, 2008).
A video on the provincial website shows how employees of the Alberta government are aware that oil sands production is the subject of intense criticism. This is a welcome fact as it may contribute to further improvements in their policy choices (Alberta, no year). Consultations are necessary when development occurs on indigenous peoples land (Alberta Energy, 2009). The province of Alberta is committed to reclaiming the land, yet this is a lengthy process (Alberta, 2008). Water and air quality are constantly monitored. Results show that despite the recent intensification of production there is nothing to be alarmed by. If anything, increased toxicity in waterways can be attributed to natural weathering processes which release bitumen and metals (Kunzig, 2009). Despite elevated cancer rates in some communities, no link has been made between oil sand production and illness. Therefore, there is no need for alarm as further studies need to be conducted to establish such a link (Alberta Cancer Board, 2009; Hagget, 2009). Overall, oil sands represent both an enormous challenge and opportunity.
The Corporate Version
Industry representatives presenting to the Canadian Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development positioned oil corporations as being at the heart of the Canadian economy, necessary for job and wealth creation. Yet they are committed to ensuring that oil sands development proceeds in a sustainable way (Canada, 2009). Therefore, environmental, social, and economic impacts are always taken into consideration. When oil extraction facilities are built in the vicinity of indigenous communities, trust building is deemed to be important. This is done primarily through consultations. Oil sands development is meant to proceed in a collaborative manner, meaning that industry seeks input from those affected by its activities. Such views are expressed in sustainability reports and Aboriginal Affairs policies (Suncor Energy, 2005; Nexen, 2008a, Shell, no year). By listening to concerns raised, corporations seek to improve outdated methods of oil extraction (Nexen, 2008). The oil industry is also a big funder of research to see how its activities affect the environment. Findings are used in attempts to curb its negative impact. Research and technology investments mean that corporations are able to operate by leaving a smaller ecological footprint. Gradually water usage is becoming more efficient and greenhouse gases are being reduced (Shell, 2006).
. Because oil operations cause disturbances to the surrounding environment, the input of indigenous peoples is also sought to provide their traditional knowledge in the land reclamation process. This in hopes of returning the land to a state that is similar to its original form (Nexen, 2008a).
. The wellbeing of communities is of primary concern. According to Suncor’s Aboriginal Affairs policy, the wellbeing of indigenous peoples is deeply tied to employment possibilities, and so efforts are made to have employment strategies that target indigenous peoples. Support for local businesses means positive economic spin-offs for surrounding indigenous communities, stimulating self-reliance (Suncor Energy, 2005). A similar view is pronounced on Nexen’s and Shell’s websites (Nexen, 2007a; Shell, no year). According to a press release by Suncor, a lot of energy is put into increasing community participation in the oil sands industry, so as to generate substantive profits for locally owned indigenous businesses (CSR Wire, 2001). Wellbeing is also tied to education and culture. This is why oil corporations are committed to funding educational programs and cultural activities in the communities surrounding their operations. Corporations also fund infrastructure projects which are meant to improve the living standards of local communities (Suncor, 2005; Nexen, 2007a).
. Nexen’s website mentions how senior management expresses the need to be aware of the cultural particularities of indigenous peoples. In response, management organizes, or attends, several conferences concerning indigenous rights (Nexen, no year). Employees then become more sensitized and aware of the context in which they are operating. In fact, many corporations have an expressed concern for respecting human rights of both staff and surrounding communities. If a particular project necessitates an impact study, funding is available (Nexen, 2008a; Nexen, 2007; Shell, 2006).
1.3 Concluding Remarks
There is no doubt that oil sands extraction represents an economic opportunity for Alberta and Canada. While benefits do accrue to society at large, there is also evidence of disproportionate negative effects on the communities in proximity to oil sands projects, especially indigenous peoples. Because of what is at stake, it is difficult to evaluate the authenticity of claims, as all stakeholders polarize the debate to support their interests.
Of course indigenous peoples should not be viewed as having a homogeneous set of interests and some may favour oil sands development. However, its impact on land has merited negative attention from indigenous peoples, NGOs and the public at large, thus forcing corporations and government to respond, if not with action then with rhetoric laced with promise of change. Despite this, corporations and government have mutual interest in continued growth. This is problematic for less powerful groups that are opposed to oil sands expansion.
Chapter 2
The Research Project: Context, Problem Statement, Objectives and Research Questions
The following chapter contextualizes the research subject. First, it considers global processes which contribute to the existence of the problem. It then gives a historical perspective on the problem. Once the problem is defined, it provides the relevance and justification for the ensuing research. Finally, it describes the objectives and lists the research questions.
2.1 Contextualizing the Problem
Globalization: A Precursor to Corporate Human Rights Violations
The lure of capital flows, generated by corporations, has pushed countries to create a favourable investment climate. This has resulted in an acceleration and rapid multiplication of transnational processes, including capital flows, leading to the gradual integration of the world system. In light of this phenomenon, it has been advantageous for countries to loosely regulate, if not completely deregulate, some industries to attract foreign direct investment in hopes of stimulating economic growth, technology transfers and job creation. By adopting a lax attitude to the functioning of corporations, some countries have seen their sphere of influence decrease while simultaneously granting corporations more power. This has been associated with a regulatory “race to the bottom”, whereby countries compete for foreign direct investment by allowing corporations to operate in whichever way they see fit. At times, even with the knowledge of corporate wrongdoings, states are unwilling to take action because of their desire to remain attractive in the eyes of investors (Wells & Elias, 2005). Some corporations have misused their position of power which has had detrimental effects on surrounding communities and the environment (Voiculescu, 2006). On an extreme level, corporations have been found to be complicit their involvement with human rights violations. A well known example is Royal Dutch Shell’s involvement in the violent suppression of protestors who were against oil extraction policies in Ogoniland, Nigeria (Wells & Elias, 2005). So with increased power, corporations should, in theory, have more responsibility. This is why corporations are being seen as potentially important contributors to societal welfare (Weissbrodt & Kruger, 2005).
. Canada’s Human Rights Record: Example of the Lubicon Indian Nation
. In the 1950’s, oil exploration began on what the Lubicon Band considered to be their traditional land. Subsequent development in the area, including the construction of roads and oil wells, contributed to the degradation of their traditional lifestyle (Morin, 1988). When development commenced, governmental promises that a reserve would be created for the Lubicon Band were broken. Alberta claimed that the land was under the jurisdiction of the Crown and was thus available for development. The Lubicon Band originally explored domestic remedies in trying to resolve this issue, as a temporary injunction was sought in 1982. Yet the judge hearing the case decided in favour of the government and oil companies. The rationale behind this decision was that any harm done during development could later be compensated for (Amnesty International, 2003: 4). The Lubicon Band then took their cause to the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) in 1984. This was in hopes of securing their right to subsistence which was being threatened by extractive industries (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2007: 1). Families who depended on trapping were made to rely on welfare, as the number of animals dramatically fell following oil exploitation (Amnesty International, 2003). As a result, the UNHRC decided that Canada should take “interim measures of protection to avoid irreparable damage to (Lubicon) Chief Ominayak and other members of the Lubicon Lake Band” (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2007: 1).
. In the interim, development continued and negotiations between the Lubicon Band and Canada remained unfruitful, resulting in a new submission being made to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UNCESCR) in 2006. The submission referred to the fact that continued resource extraction was the cause of a sleuth of severe health problems experienced in the Lubicon population, including rashes, asthma and cancers. Toxic accumulation made water non-potable and people receiving minimal financial assistance from the government had to rely on expensive bottled water for survival. These occurrences motivated the Lubicons to ask the UNCESCR to reaffirm past decisions and to officially reprimand Canada for its inaction (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2007). In its concluding observations, the UNCESCR echoed the decision of the UNHRC stating that negotiations were key to dispute resolution and that effective consultation should take place prior to licences being granted so as to not threaten the rights bestowed on the Lubicons under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2007: 8).
. What is clear is that Canada was not judicious in offering effective remedies, despite stated efforts to the contrary. Even to date a resolution to this situation remains elusive, illustrative that Canada, through its development efforts, can be found infringing on the rights of indigenous peoples.
2.2 Problem Statement
Clashing Interests Surrounding Oil Sands Extraction
As can be noted, there are noticeable similarities between both the Lubicon case and the current situation unfolding in the Athabasca, Cold Lake and Peace River regions. In general terms, one could state that NGOs and indigenous groups are pinned against the interests of the government and corporations. Yet, based on the four stories described in Chapter 1, it would appear that all stakeholders involved in Alberta’s oil sands are deeply committed to resolving the issues that have emerged. Therefore, at least in theory, resolution should be within reach. However, strong tensions between the various groups remain. This rift may be attributed to varied understandings of certain terminology and to the fact that, when represented through actions, understandings become contestable. Of particular concern to indigenous groups is that, while there is a broad recognition of rights in name, their actualization remains illusory (Corntassel, 2008). Because of the malleable nature of terminology, each group may internalize a definition which suits their interest at the expense of others. Therefore, actions by one group may not be interpreted as being representative of the intent stated by other groups. For instance, the notion of rights may have one connotation for indigenous groups and an entirely different connotation for corporations. Similarly, the duty to consult may have different meanings for each stakeholder, and so what is seen as an appropriate consultation by one group may fall short of expectations for others.
Consultation policies are meant to ensure that local communities have a say in how energy development occurs. Therefore, consultation processes can be viewed as a gateway to rights realization. In other terms, if economic development is of importance to communities, projects proceed largely unaltered. Otherwise, changes should be made to projects so as to accommodate indigenous interests. Despite the existence of well-intentioned consultation policies, often contestations arise over how they are actualized. This is due to the fact that they may not safeguard the rights they set out to protect.
Recently, the Mikisew Cree complained that they have not been adequately consulted with regard to oil sands development. Such claims strongly echo those of the Lubicon Band. A complaint of this nature would not occur if proper policy implementation were carried out, as stakeholders should then influence project development in line with their interests. The Supreme Court of Canada has strongly expressed itself in this regard. For instance, in 2005 it ruled that the Mikisew Cree should be consulted about any developments that occur on its traditional land, especially when its treaty rights are at stake. Additionally, the Supreme Court found that any concern arising from the Mikisew Cree regarding development should be “demonstrably integrated into any plan of action” (Fraser Milner Casgrain, 2005: 2). Nevertheless, inadequate consultations have already triggered several indigenous communities taking the provincial government to court in 2008 (Sandborn, 2008; CBC, 2008; Jowit, 2009; Bell, 2009; IEN, 2009; Tar Sands Watch, 2008). This is problematic as reparation and restitution of dignity can only be deemed effective if non-repetition occurs, according to a 2006 UN general assembly resolution (Corntassel, 2008).
2.3 Relevance, Justification and Objectives
Relevance: Overcoming a Troubled Past
Historically, colonization led to indigenous marginalization, the residues of which can still be felt in the various indigenous communities across Canada. Unfortunately, high incidences of social pathologies have manifested themselves in those communities where discrimination, abuse and neglect were, and sometimes still are, common place (Elias, 1996). According to Jimenez (2004), Canada currently emphasizes the role of the global economy as being an opportunity for indigenous peoples to prevail over their peripheral position in society and to step out of the shadows of their tainted history. Relying exclusively on the benefits of market forces to better the plight of indigenous peoples does not come uncontested.
While often presented as an opportunity, oil sands development from an indigenous standpoint seems to come at a high cost. Recently, there has been a growth in academic literature which highlights the environmental consequences and human rights abuses that occur as a result of transnational development (Hermann, 1995). Oil sands extraction is a perfect illustration. According to some indigenous leaders, oil sands production is yet another blow to the integrity of their culture and lifestyle, and further deteriorates their communities (Best & Hoberg, 2008). Issues raised by these leaders fall under the human rights banner, including the right to culture, health and life. In 1977 Thomas Berger, who was commissioned to do an inquiry on the feasibility of a pipeline in Northern Canada, noted that, “Native people have paid a high price in terms of social impact wherever the industrial economy has penetrated the North” (Jimenez, 2004: 357).
These two stances as to what is beneficial for indigenous communities reside on opposite sides of the spectrum. This embodies the conflicting interests surrounding oil sand extraction. Overall, it is important to evaluate the potentiality of the market in protecting indigenous rights.
Justification
As noted in the Provincial Management section, the Alberta government has largely deregulated the oil industry. As such, the onus for socially responsible conduct largely rests on the shoulders of corporations. Both the Alberta government and the ERCB have stressed how corporations are obliged to consult with local communities even prior to project commencement. Therefore, corporations represent stakeholders that have a lot of power in accommodating community interests, and because of their direct contact with communities, can be largely influential in protecting the human rights of certain groups. The fact that large corporations are endowed with financial clout and technical expertise is perhaps what makes corporations an interesting object of study, as they have the potential to deploy resources in socially conscious ways (Brown et al, 2006). Voluntary codes of conduct can thus be quick to adjust to market demands, and may be complimentary and further strengthen government regulation. In a best case scenario, one may envision that corporate voluntary codes of conduct may surpass regulatory standards set by government. On that note, corporations can be seen as agents that are supportive of rights realization, though their operational mandate may allow for this to happen in contested ways. In this end, this may justify government intervention.
Objective
As highlighted in the Lubicon case, and suggested by material presented on the Alberta oil sands case, while Canada is the primary duty bearer it has proven ineffective in resolving the human rights issues affecting indigenous peoples. Therefore, it becomes relevant to investigate to what extent oil corporations have embedded human rights principles and socially conscious norms in their corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs or Aboriginal Relations programs. After having understood what corporate notions of human rights entail, it then becomes feasible to evaluate whether corporate policies and programs are geared to meet local indigenous needs in theory and whether policies actually translate into actions which are deemed beneficial to the local communities. It is also important to understand the rationale underpinning the justification of continued extraction on traditional land. By uncovering this, one may be able to identify spaces where an amelioration of the situation can occur, which is the ultimate objective of this research.
2.4 Research Questions
Main Question
How do corporate notions of human rights affect rights realization for indigenous peoples living in Canada’s Athabasca, Peace River and Cold Lake regions? Do actions taken by oil corporations correspond with indigenous aspirations?
Sub-Questions
1. To what extent have oil corporations operating in Canada’s Athabasca, Peace River and Cold Lake region incorporated socially responsible norms, including respect for human rights, in their sustainability reports? To what can we attribute changes of norm usage? Does norm acceptance actually translate into better corporate conduct?
2. How do regulators and industry representatives justify extraction on traditional land and what implications does this have on indigenous rights?
3. Does the current provincial consultation policy allow for indigenous rights to be protected?
4. What actions, if any, can the provincial and federal government take to compliment and further bolster the rights protection strategies set forth by corporations?
2.5 Concluding Remarks
While bound by certain international law instruments, Canada appears to be ineffective at meeting its human rights obligations. The state faces a dilemma: to encourage growth and development or to protect the rights of those affected by it. In very practical terms, striking a perfect balance between the two is perhaps impossible as there are no easy panaceas. It seems that one side will always be compromised in the name of the other. As it stands, Canada seems most preoccupied with creating a favourable investment climate, which, however, is detrimental to some. This dilemma opens a space where authorities should explore alternative types of development which may be less disruptive to land, such as the construction of wind turbines. Such alternatives may be more in line with indigenous values. Either way, considering the effects of the colonial legacy on indigenous peoples in Canada, more stringent protective measures should be taken to guarantee that they will have more say on how development will fold in the future.
Chapter 3
Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The following chapter highlights how the state remains the main duty bearer in protecting the rights of its citizens, but with time corporations have been given increased attention in this regard. The proliferation of international regimes and voluntary mechanisms guiding corporate conduct is a reflection of this trend. Increased pressure from various sources means that at least some corporations are increasingly including socially conscious norms into their operational guidelines and shifting their legal consciousness. These two ideas will be further elaborated in the body of this chapter. Finally, the methodology, methods and limitations will be addressed.
1 Indigenous Human Rights
State as a Duty Bearer
Despite the rich corpus of international law which demands the respect and protection of indigenous peoples, discriminatory laws still exist in many states. Currently, evidence from Alberta suggests a disjuncture between what is happening on the ground and the ideals enshrined in international law. For instance, the UNHRC stressed the fact that indigenous peoples’ rights should never be compromised in the name of national development (Forest Peoples Programme & Tebtebba Foundation, 2006). So, while Alberta and the national government derive significant revenue from oil sands extraction, according to the UNHRC, this would not justify compromising indigenous peoples’ rights.
The state is the primary duty bearer when it comes to guaranteeing the rights of its citizens. In fact, after ratifying certain international law treaties, a state is obliged to give domestic legal effect to its international commitments, and to ensure that remedies be available for those seeking to secure their rights (Forest Peoples Programme & Tebetta Foundation, 2006). According to a 2006 decision by the Inter-American Commission, states must seek the consent of indigenous peoples when it comes to decisions that affect their interests. Furthermore, the UNHRC acknowledged that special protective measures are required to secure the rights of indigenous peoples, because their history has been tainted with discrimination. International law demands for the legal recognition of their rights to land and resources. When it comes to the issue of resource extraction, a wide range of interconnected rights may be jeopardized, including economic, social and cultural rights (Forest Peoples Programme & Tebetta Foundation, 2006). In the words of the UN Special Rapporteur dealing with indigenous issues,
“resources are being extracted and/or developed by other interests (oil, mining, logging, fisheries, etc.) with little or no benefits for the indigenous communities that occupy the land…In numerous instances the rights and needs of indigenous peoples are disregarded, making this one of the major human rights problems faced by them in recent decades” (Stevenhagen, 2002: 8).
. Binding Obligations
. Canada’s own Constitution Act, of 1982, highlights how the state has a fiduciary duty to “Aboriginal peoples”. This Act ensures that their treaty rights, which guarantee spiritual practices, fishing, hunting and trapping, are not threatened (Mass, 2009: 8). Moreover, as highlighted in the Lubicon case, development can be the source of human rights violations, resulting in Canada breaching its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), both ratified on May 19, 1976 (UN, 2009).
According to Article 1 of both instruments, Canada needs to ensure that all peoples within its territory have the right to self determination and can use their resources in whichever way they see fit. Furthermore, under no circumstances can Canadians be deprived of their means of subsistence (Banning et al, 2004: 4 & 7). Additionally, Article 27, of the ICCPR, guarantees that all people should be able to enjoy their culture. In the case of indigenous peoples, culture may be intimately connected to the land which provides them with opportunities for fishing and hunting, a right already supposedly protected in Canada’s Constitution Act (Forest Peoples Programme & Tebetta Foundation, 2006). Moreover, the ICESCR guarantees the right to an adequate standard of living, health and culture (Banning et al, 2004). Despite respecting these rights by name, Canada has been found to breach its own domestic and international obligations and thus has infringed upon the rights of those living on its territory. The case of the Lubicon Indian Nation is such an example and a similar case can probably be made for those currently affected by oil sands development.
Other Instruments that Aim at Protecting Indigenous Peoples
Canada has not signed two instruments which were devised at protecting indigenous peoples (Minority Rights Group International, 2007; Walia, 2009: 1). One is the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on September 13, 2007 (UN, no year 2; Government of Canada, 2009). The Declaration was the result of twenty plus years of effort, from independent experts and indigenous peoples, and was born from the concern that injustice suffered at the hands of colonizers has prevented indigenous peoples from exercising their right to development. The Declaration, though not legally binding, encourages states to fully comply with their international obligations related to indigenous peoples. A call is also made for the empowerment of indigenous peoples so that they can make use of their resources in ways which strengthen their cultures and traditions. Of particular interest is Article 18 which states, “Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights…” (UN, no year 2: 5). Meanwhile, Section 1, of Article 26, states, “Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired” (UN, no year 2: 6). Furthermore, Section 2 of Article 32 specifies that,
“States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources particularly in connection with the development, utilization, or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources” (UN, no year 2: 7).
The main reasons for Canada not signing are because provisions pertaining to land, territories and resources are too vague and subject to interpretation. Further, the idea of “free, prior and informed consent” could be interpreted as giving veto power to indigenous peoples over many matters, including development (Government of Canada, 2009). Granting this right poses a threat to potential revenue streams flowing from oil sands extraction, or more generally from energy projects, which partially explains Canada’s reluctance to sign this document. The idea that indigenous peoples have rights to their traditional land in Canada may be a further deterrent to sign, considering the large expanse of land potentially involved.
The other relevant instrument yet to be signed is ILO 169, a legally binding Convention that sets guidelines meant to protect the rights of indigenous peoples. Many of the provisions echo those of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. For example,
“The peoples concerned shall have the right to decide their own priorities for the process of development as it affects their lives, beliefs, institutions and spiritual well-being and the lands they occupy or otherwise use, and to exercise control, to the extent possible, over their own economic, social and cultural development. In addition, they shall participate in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of plans and programmes for national and regional development which may affect them directly” (ILO, 2006a: 4).
Article 4 states that, “Special measures shall be adopted as appropriate for safeguarding the persons, institutions, property, labour, cultures and environment of the peoples concerned” (Ibid: 3). With regards to oil exploration, it can be said that Governments have the responsibility to ensure that consultations take place in an adequate manner, though they need not necessarily do the work themselves (IFC, 2007).
3.2 Corporations and Human Rights
A Shift of Attention
Since the 1980’s human rights, as a notion, has gradually gained widespread acceptance on the international agenda. The recent proliferation of treaties and resolutions is a reflection of this (Merry, 2006). Initially, human rights had a state-centric view in that citizens were to be protected from malicious government regimes. However, the passing of time has revealed how non-state actors, including corporations, can also be violators of human rights. A corporation, through its actions, can send mixed signals which do not fit into civil society’s realm of acceptability (Vickers, 1973). With this realization, NGOs now direct campaigns to “name and shame” those business entities which they deem to be socially irresponsible. This has been the case with Amnesty International (AI) which has developed its own set of principles on how corporations should function.
While mainly focusing on the rights of employees, AI also insists that corporations have a wider responsibility and should use their influence to promote the respect for human rights in the wider contexts in which they operate. In countries with legislative gaps, corporations still have an obligation to adhere to international principles. This insistence is based on the supposition that humans are all endowed with inherent dignity, and this universal value should be acknowledged and respected by all (Amnesty International, 1998).
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as a Phenomenon
Self-regulation in its institutionalized form has been labelled by the business world as CSR, emerging in part due to the ineffectiveness of other regulatory mechanisms (Voiculescu, 2006). CSR is a concept that has its origins in the 18th century, when certain companies built houses and schools for staff and their nuclear family (Bakker et al, 2004). However, the proliferation of the CSR initiatives is a relatively recent phenomenon that can be attributed to mounting public pressure from civil society actors - such as NGOs, consumer groups and the general public - and the government. Their aim is to ensure that corporations engage in socially responsible practices.
Often times profit maximization can be identified as the root cause of corporate scandals. Thus, civil society actors are increasingly trying to graft their interests into the realm of corporate responsibility. Their interests are reflective of normative ideals. Norms “describe collective expectations for the proper behaviour of actors with a given identity” and, are formed based on strongly held principles of what is right and wrong (Sikkink, 1998; Sikkink & Keck, 1999: 90). Of course, new ideas can sometimes be met with resistance, thus acceptance of norms occurs at different rates for different corporations (Merry, 2001).
From this perspective, corporations can be seen as porous entities which are shaped by various forces within the global arena. Consequently, corporations have expanded their scope of operations (Ruggie, 2004). By correspondingly expanding their responsibilities, firms are increasingly being preoccupied with activities that used to belong to the realm of the state. Now more than ever, corporations are preoccupied with their environmental record and impact on socio-economic, civil and political rights (Voiculescu, 2006). Thus, human rights norms are increasingly being framed in CSR programs in order to best address and quell the concerns of civil society (Jacobs, no year). The malleable frame of corporations has concrete repercussions on operations as they repeatedly alter mandates, practices and ideals (Buhr & Grafstrom, 2008).
By appropriating or accepting norms, the corporate legal consciousness of a firm can be modified. At its core,
“legal consciousness is ordinarily understood in terms of knowledge or awareness of the law and its potential for resolving disputes and affecting social change…it provides people with the interpretive frameworks to guide their interactions with law and inform their beliefs about law’s promise or danger” (Jacobs, no year: 41).
Thus legal consciousness can be seen as an amalgamation of values that comes from awareness of the law. This, in turn, shapes how one interacts and interprets the law (Jacobs, no year). As such, persons may come to “engage, avoid, or resist the law and legal meanings” (Silbey, 2008: 1). Consequently, legal consciousness, by nature, can be observed by what persons say or do. In the case of corporations, responsiveness to stakeholder demands/suggestions may depend on a multitude of factors, including business culture and what its perceived legal obligations may be (Jacobs, no year). Generally, oil corporations operating in the oil sands are endowed with both a CSR policy and Aboriginal Relations programs. Though fundamentally born from the same principles, the latter were created to adjust to the particularities of their operational context, and highlights self-imposed obligations they have toward indigenous peoples.
Law Guiding Corporations
Considering the powerful role of corporations in society, it comes as a surprise that they have been largely omitted, at least explicitly, from the dense web of human rights obligations which reigns in international law. While transnational corporations have been subjects of law, instruments have focused on restrictive or corrupt business practices, all the while neglecting their human rights obligations (Steinhardt, 2005). However, there is a definite need to gradually move away from this state-centric view, and reconsider how human rights law can address the challenges posed by corporations (Clapham, 2006).
One can look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) to conclude that non-state actors, like corporations, have a duty not to engage in any activity that threatens someone’s human right. Article 30 states that,
“Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein” (Banning et al, 2004: 3).
Former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, and many others, have made it clear that this Article applies to corporations as well (Clapham, 2006).
3.3 Regimes and Voluntary Mechanisms Guiding Corporate Conduct
Over time, there has been a growing recognition that corporations need to be increasingly regulated. Various regimes were created to address this fact. The following section will discuss some of the prominent regimes and voluntary mechanisms which emerged to deal with corporate behaviour.
OECD Guidelines
In 1976, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) established a set of guidelines to incite responsible business conduct (Weissbrodt & Kruger, 2005). Originally, the Guidelines were established in order to ameliorate the potential for investment, encourage multinationals to stimulate economic and social progress and to address the externalities which derive from their operations (OECD, no year). It was not until the year 2000 that the Guidelines were revised to include concern for human rights (Steinhardt, 2005). The Guidelines themselves are completely voluntary and, thus, not legally binding. Yet states have the responsibility to encourage corporations operating in their territory to adhere to them.
Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy
In 1977, the Governing Body of the International Labour Organization (ILO) adopted the Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy (Clapham, 2006: 211). The Tripartite Declaration is voluntary and applies to a wide range of actors such as governments, employers and workers organizations. The Declaration resulted from intense debate, especially in the developing world, on regulating the actions of multinationals. The Declaration deals with topics ranging from employment to industrial relations, and also insists that parties concerned must follow national laws and regulations (ILO, 2006). It also urges corporations to respect the UDHR and the bodies of law born from it, like the International Covenants. Implementation of the Tripartite Declaration is a three-step process consisting of promotional activities, a clarification procedure and periodic survey (Clapham, 2006). Overall, it seems that expectations for its effectiveness have fallen, due to the lack of obligations imposed, and the non-enforceability of the Declaration (Steinhardt, 2005).
UN Norms on the Responsibilities for Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights
In 2003, the UN sub-commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights adopted the Norms and Responsibilities for Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights (Clapham, 2006). The Norms remind us that protecting human rights remains the primary duty of the state, yet corporations must also adhere to human rights principles within their sphere of influence. The document, in its preamble, reminds us of the “universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness of human rights” and that corporations have a duty to respect and protect these (UN, 2003: 1). Corporations are also expected to inform themselves of the human rights abuses that may emerge from their operations. Ultimately, the effectiveness of the Norms lies in the willingness of corporations to adopt such principles.
International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA)
IPIECA was founded shortly after the creation of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The association consists of upstream and downstream players in the oil and gas industry, which are charged an annual fee to become members. IPIECA is committed to the continuous improvement of the industry and provides a forum where solutions to problems, both environmental and social, can be discussed and disseminated. Task forces actively work on various issues ranging from climate change to sustainability reporting (IPIECA, no year). One working group, created in 2002, focuses on human rights issues and provides a platform where members can exchange information to upgrade their knowledge on social responsibility issues (IPEICA, 2008: 5). Finally, IPIECA compels members to respect indigenous peoples and for them to be consulted in decisions that may affect them (IPIECA, 2008).
The Global Reporting Initiative
The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is a framework by which companies can report on their sustainability performances. It was conceived by both the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (CERES) and the Tellus Institute. The initial framework was primarily focused on environmental reporting and, upon its launch, was met with a certain apprehension from the North American market. This pushed those who conceptualized the instrument to partner with UNEP, to best expand its reach. After a series of interactions with various stakeholders, the GRI was created in 2000, and the scope of the framework expanded to encompass social, economic, governance and labor standards, and anti-corruption policies. In 2002, a second set of guidelines was released at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. These guidelines were praised by government officials, corporate representatives and civil society alike, which confirmed their status as an internationally recognized reporting framework (GRI, 2007: 1). Currently, there is also a push for companies to report on their human rights performances (GRI, no year).
UN Global Compact
The UN Global Compact was launched in July 2000. It is a voluntary initiative which sets out ten principles which firms must respect (Jacobs, no year). The principles cover human rights issues, environment and labour standards. In terms of human rights, the principles highlight that corporations should a) not be complicit in human rights violations and b) within their sphere of influence respect recognized human rights (UN, 2006). According to Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the Global Compact initiative is meant to bring a human element to economic development, and allows for corporations to self-regulate (Voiculescu, 2006).
3.4 Methodology
Application of Theoretical Framework
Theoretical ideas of norm acceptance and legal consciousness are intimately interwoven and may help provide insight on how corporations evolve over time and how these are related to performance. As a result of adherence to regimes or voluntary mechanisms guiding corporate conduct, one may, over time, see changes in the vocabulary employed in sustainability reports. Vocabulary selected is reflective of normative ideals which, on some level, may contribute to the realization of indigenous rights. This hypothesis stems from a longitudinal, lexicological study of corporate discourse by Bakker et al (2007), which was based on the premise that the way corporations write about a certain issue reflects of their position towards it. So, an increase in the employment of certain terms could be indicative that norm entrenchment is taking place and that subsequent performance along these lines is improving. For instance, a company that strongly reflects its environmental stewardship in its communication tools may act in a way that positively supports the right to subsistence, by using technology that diminishes its ecological footprint. However, the increased or decreased frequency of norm usage in sustainability reports may not necessarily be equated with changes in corporate conduct, and may simply be a way to positively portray the corporation. Therefore, it is important to evaluate if stated intents, represented through changes in norm frequency, can be correlated with performance. If no clear link can be established then this may put into question the value of adhering to regimes or voluntary mechanisms which have emerged.
By looking exclusively at published material, one gets the sense that corporations have a very well defined legal consciousness, as they articulate being compliant to socially conscious norms and laws in their CSR and Aboriginal Relations programs. Yet by observing what corporate actors say, or do, with regards to human rights, will aid in understanding how they define human rights and what their responsibilities are in this field. Understanding corporate notions of human rights is important as this will help map out to what extent they are involved with rights protection, and to see how their efforts can be complemented.
Corporate understandings of the consultation process, reflective of their legal consciousness, should also be considered, as this process can be viewed as a gateway for rights realization. If at some point the process is flawed, and reveals lacunae that inadvertently negatively affect indigenous rights, then a re-conceptualization of the consultative process should ensue. Additionally, how regulators and corporations justify extraction should also be considered, as the nexus between the two may provide a barrier for rights realization (Fekete, 2009). The consideration of all of these factors may reveal the need for government intervention, to ensure that rights are respected and protected.
3.5 Methods & Limitations
Methods
Firstly, for a comprehensive understanding of the situation, especially the ideological positions of the different actors involved, a literature review was done. Academic journal articles were used for their credibility. Online sources were used, including grassroots media sources, to gain an understanding of activists’ perspectives. Newspaper articles were read to keep abreast of latest developments. Documentaries and news clippings were watched in order to gain further insight on the various discourses by different stakeholders.
Secondly, sustainability reports were analyzed from two oil companies operating in the oil sands, Suncor and Nexen. Suncor was selected because of its longstanding involvement in the oil sands. Its experience in the field may reveal insight on what best practices are, and whether these are linked to rights realization. Nexen, on the other hand, was selected because of its involvement in the UN Global Compact. As Nexen is a participant in the Global Compact, it is assumed that its human rights notions would be well defined, translating into action that is consistent with human rights norms.
The ensuing analysis of sustainability reports revolved around the usage of certain terms over time, to see how expressed concern of certain issues has changed. Words searched for include: human rights, Aboriginal, Indigenous, consultation, environment, sustainability and integrity. Each individual word count total was divided by the number of pages per report, so as to make comparisons between reports and corporations more relevant. The frequency of term usage was seen as an indicator reflecting norm acceptance. Shifts in language usage over time could, thus, be viewed as indicative of the transformative nature of corporate priorities. Two graphs were constructed to illustrate changes in the use of these words (see Appendix 2 for word count data).
Thirdly, raw data provided by Melissa Shin, Managing Editor of Corporate Knights, reflected how a corporation did on separate indicators such as: employment, business development, community relations, environmental impact and governance. This data was used by Corporate Knights to complete its own Aboriginal Relations Ranking which ranks extractive industries in Canada’s oil sands. Corporate Knights, a Canadian based independent media company, focuses explicitly on issues surrounding corporate social responsibility. Currently, it publishes the world’s largest circulation magazine devoted to this topic (Corporate Knights, no year). The data was used to evaluate whether stated adherence to certain norms can be correlated with good corporate performance, and how this relates to corporate notions of human rights.
Fourthly, six separate interviews were conducted. One was done with Jerry Welsh, Manager of Aboriginal Affairs at Suncor. Another interview was conducted with Darcie Park, Manager of Sustainability Reporting & Assurance at Nexen. Another was done with Lloyd Martell, Manager of Aboriginal Partnerships at Nexen. Employees were selected based on their position and department, so as to provide relevant insight surrounding issues discussed in this paper.
Another interview was conducted with Greg Gilbertson, Operations Leader in the Community and Aboriginal Relations department at the Energy Resource Conservation Board (ERCB). This was done to gain further insight as to how oil sands are regulated in Alberta and to understand some of the values underpinning the manner in which regulation unfolds.
Clayton Thomas Muller, indigenous oil campaign organizer for the Indigenous Environment Network (IEN), an NGO fighting against oil sand extraction, was also interviewed. This was done to shed further light on the problem from an indigenous stance, and to highlight potential solutions.
Finally, an interview was conducted with Dr. Jeff Corntassel, Cherokee Professor in Indigenous Governance at the UVic, British Columbia, Canada. He was consulted based on his academic expertise of the subject (see Appendix 3 for more interview details).
Limitations
Firstly, one of the limiting factors in doing a literature review is that by reviewing material, one may only get the dominant discourses and as such the nuanced positions of different stakeholders are not represented. Because field work was simply not feasible, both for financial and time restrictions, a wealth of information was read and phone interviews were conducted to overcome this limitation.
Secondly, limitations surround the analysis of the sustainability reports. The eight-year time frame analyzed is relatively short. Changes in norm acceptance by corporations may not necessarily be reflected in sustainability reports, as there may be a time lag between norm acceptance and reporting tools which reflect this fact. The years 2001-2008 were selected because of their availability. Further research should take this into account as a longer time frame may reveal more obvious trends. Also, the context of the word used in reports was not considered. This may be limiting since it remains unknown if mention of a word can be equated with norm acceptance or an increased concern with issues surrounding the word chosen. Further research should try and evaluate the context surrounding the terms employed to see if corporations are actively engaged in issues surrounding word usage, or if there simply exists a passive recognition of the importance of such issues. Finally, a term like “human rights” is loaded. A company may report on issues surrounding their funding of educational projects which can be considered a support for the right to education. Yet the umbrella term “human rights” was considered, as searching for each individual right would have been exceedingly time consuming. Conclusions made from this analysis must also reflect this.
Lastly, limitations also surrounded the interview process as a whole. First, emails were sent in hopes of getting a contact in the Aboriginal Relations or CSR departments of several oil corporations. Lack of responses was problematic at the onset, as excessive time was spent on follow-up. Additionally, the limited interaction with respondents prior to the interview may have resulted in “safer” more generic type answers. However, all participants were offered anonymity prior to the beginning of the interview so as to try to overcome this limitation.
3.6 Concluding Remarks
Corporations are now a dominant force shaping the economic and socio-political spheres of countries. Because of this power, their regulation has emerged at the forefront of many debates, culminating in the creation of regimes and voluntary mechanisms guiding corporate conduct. Despite these positive steps, the lack of enforcement mechanisms results in corporate impunity, problematic for those negatively affected by corporate activities. In relation to Canada, this does not bode well considering that the state has not taken a strong stance in relation to the rights of indigenous peoples. As a consequence, indigenous peoples seem increasingly reliant on the benevolence of corporations to realize their rights. However at some level, the “raison-d’être” of corporations seems to come into conflict with the objective of rights realization, which further begs the question who should do what to protect indigenous rights?
Chapter 4
Unearthing the Findings: Norms Acceptance, Legal Consciousness and the Implications for Rights Realization
The following chapter evaluates to what extent socially conscious norms, including respect for human rights, have been accepted by Suncor and Nexen. It aims at identifying regimes or voluntary mechanisms which may contribute to this process, and determine if in fact norm acceptance can be related to performance. Furthermore, it evaluates how corporations view human rights and how this translates into actions meant to realize this conception. It also discusses how legal consciousness has affected the consultation process. Finally, an examination of the justifications underpinning oil sand development will ensue.
4.1 Analyzing Sustainability Reports
Norm Acceptance
Sustainability reports are an effective means to convey messages to stakeholders who are interested in the social and environmental aspects of a business. Words selected can help communicate intent, reinforce legitimacy, project an image and may be indicative of norm acceptance, thus giving insight into business culture (Bakker et al, 2007). Changes in the usage of certain terms over time may reveal shifts in priorities and could be indicative of good performance.
From the onset it is important to note that no norm acceptance benchmark exists, which would allow one to extrapolate whether a company is performing well or not. So all inferences made in this section, regarding performance, are made based on changes of terms through time, both within and between two corporations. With this in mind, the following section analyzes the sustainability reports of Nexen and Suncor from the period 2001-2008.
Nexen
Nexen, which launched operations in 1971, describes itself as a frontrunner in the global energy market and is supported by over 4000 staff members (Nexen, 2009). Apart from the North American market, including the Albertan oil sands, Nexen also has operations in the UK-North Sea, Yemen and the Gulf of Mexico. Core business functions include, “selling proprietary and third-party natural gas, crude oil, natural gas liquids, ethanol and power in certain markets”(Nexen, 2009: 1). The oil sands represent an important opportunity for Nexen’s growth plans. They own over 281 000 acres of “bitumen-prone lands” and also have a 7.23% stake in Syncrude, another major player in the oil sands industry (Nexen, 2009a: 1).
Figure 1
[pic]
Looking at general trends, we can see how there is a gradual increase of terms relating to social performance in Nexen’s sustainability reports, indicative of the fact that social norms are gradually becoming more important for Nexen. This could be because its operations are expanding, and consequently, Nexen wants to communicate with its stakeholders a commitment to operating in a socially conscious manner. In the period spanning from 2001-2004 “human rights” was used on average 0.35 times per page, whereas in the period spanning from 2005-2008 “human rights” was used 0.54 times per page. This gradual shift could be interpreted as being indicative of the increased importance of respecting human rights for Nexen. Furthermore, changes can also be noted in the usage of the word “Aboriginal” over time. From period 2001-2004 “Aboriginal” was a term used 0.30 times per page. Meanwhile, the period spanning from 2005-2008 saw the frequency of the term “Aboriginal” augment to 0.55 times per page. By allocating more space to issues related to “Aboriginal peoples”, Nexen is signalling to stakeholders that such issues are gaining in importance, reflective, perhaps, of its quick learning curve in addressing their needs. Finally, the most drastic change is in relation to the usage of the term “sustainability”. From the period 2001-2004 the word “sustainability” was used on average 0.48 times per page, from 2005-2008 this number jumped to 1.96 times per page.
Sceptics will surely point to the fact that such shifts in terminology, which help project a positive image, can simply be viewed as a marketing ploy to quell the concerns of stakeholders and to gain legitimacy. On the other hand, optimists may consider this shift in terminology usage as being representative of a growing recognition of the importance of adhering to social norms, such as human rights. Either way, the importance of stated adherence to social norms may lie in the fact that it demonstrates an agreement of the legitimacy of the norm, and may close spaces for justifying non-adherence to it (Sikkink, 1993).
The fact that human rights norms, for instance, have been increasingly integrated into Nexen’s Sustainability reports may be attributed to several factors. First it can be noted that, in 1997, Nexen aided in the development of an International Code of Ethics for Canadian Businesses. This code underscores the importance that corporations should “support and respect the protection of international human rights within our sphere of influence and not be complicit in human rights abuses” (Nexen, 2007b: 1). This suggests that human rights norms were integrated into Nexen’s sustainability reports even prior to 2001. The creation of, and voluntary adherence to, such norms may be indicative of a progressive corporation, and is telling of its business culture which is compliant with human rights norms. Norms which resonate with corporate culture are more easily appropriated, and this may help explain the reason why Nexen decided to adhere to principles enshrined in the UN Global Compact as of 2001/3/1 (UN, no year: 1). Moreover, Nexen is a member of IPIECA and 55% of its reporting is done according to GRI standards, which further binds it to adhering to human rights principles (Nexen, 2007c: 1). Social and environmental norms seem to gradually occupy more space in Nexen’s communication tools, and may be symbolic of an entrenchment of these norms over time. From this, one may hypothesise that Nexen’s performance along social responsibility lines has also improved accordingly.
Suncor
Suncor’s history dates back to 1917 when its parent company, Sun Company from the United States, first expanded into the Canadian market. Interest in the oil sands was spurred by a 1950’s federal government study which concluded that its development would be an economically sound decision. This spelled the beginning of Suncor’s involvement in the oil sands as Sun Company began to purchase patents and leases in Fort McMurray, Alberta. Fourteen years later, its plans came to fruition with the production of its first barrel of oil. The 70’s saw the creation of Suncor-the result of a merger between Sun Company and Great Canadian Oil Sands (Suncor, no year). Currently, Suncor employs more than 5500 employees and, apart from oil sands, is also involved in natural gas production, refining, marketing and retail operations (Suncor, 2007: 2).
Figure 2
[pic]
By looking at the above graph, terms related to social performance have not significantly increased, perhaps with the exception of the word “sustainability”. From the period spanning from 2001-2004, it was used 0.56 times per page, whereas from 2005-2008 it was used on average 1.1 times per page. Generally, terminology related to social performance seems to have reached a plateau. Therefore, what can be observed are either marginal, statistically insignificant increases or, in some instances, decreases. Suncor has only made a minute change to the usage of the word “Aboriginal” between the periods 2001-2004 and 2005-2008, from 0.56 times per page to 0.58 times per page respectively. This is perhaps illustrative of Suncor’s longstanding experience in the oil sands coupled with the recognition that it is imperative to properly treat and involve their “Aboriginal” stakeholders. However, because of the minute changes, it may be difficult to make inferences on the fact that the usage of certain words, such as “human rights”, or “environment” has decreased or that “Aboriginal” has marginally increased. One may hypothesize that the relative stagnation of terminology related to social performance may be due to Suncor’s longstanding presence in the oil sands, and their unwillingness to tamper with what is deemed a winning formula. Alternatively, one may also conceive that this stagnation is reflective of an aversion to accepting socially responsible norms, and that Suncor’s performance may reflect this fact.
It is worth mentioning that Suncor neither belongs to the UN Global Compact, nor IPIECA, both of which encourage participants to respect human rights. This may account for the low usage of the term “human rights” in its sustainability reports, and may be indicative of its lack of acceptance for that norm. Corroborating this proposition is information posted on Suncor’s website, which states that it can forgo conjuring a human rights policy as North America is itself regulated by many human rights regimes and the instances of abuses are low (Suncor Energy, no year 2). However, Suncor does report in accordance of GRI guidelines, which recently have been updated to include performance on human rights related issues. Moreover, Suncor has recently merged with another oil company, Petro Canada, which is itself a member of the UN Global Compact, so it should be interesting in the future to see if acceptance of human rights and environmental norms accelerates because of this (Suncor, 2009; UN, no year 1).
4.2 Norm Acceptance Translated into Action?
Nexen and Suncor Ranking
Figure 3
|Socially Conscious Norms |Nexen | |Suncor | |
| |2001-2004 |2005-2008 |2001-2004 |2005-2008 |
|Human Rights (times/page) |0.35 |0.54 |0.07 |0.04 |
|Aboriginal (times/page) |0.30 |0.55 |0.56 |0.58 |
|Indigenous (times/page) |0.02 |0.03 |0.03 |0.01 |
|Consultation (times/page) |0.16 |0.16 |0.07 |0.07 |
|Environment (times/page) |0.62 |0.63 |0.60 |0.43 |
|Sustainability (times/page) |0.48 |1.96 |0.56 |1.10 |
|Integrity (times/page) |0.37 |0.88 |0.06 |0.08 |
When looking at the preceding data, it may be asserted that Nexen seems to demarcate itself compared to Suncor in terms of its adherence to socially conscious norms, including human rights principles, especially for the period from 2005-2008. Yet, it is widely recognized that often times there are gaps between what is reported and what is practiced (Acquier & Aggeri, 2007). It is therefore important to try and gain a picture to see how these norms translate into action by evaluating a recent Corporate Knights Aboriginal Relations Ranking which ranks extractive industries in Canada’s oil sands. This ranking system is based on a company’s performance in relation to five indicators: employment, environmental impact, community relations, business development and governance. Overall, Suncor rates as being the top oil company ranked out nine companies measured, whereas Nexen rates fifth (Francis & Shin, 2009: 23), suggesting that norm acceptance cannot necessarily be equated with good practices. This puts into question the benefits of adhering to voluntary mechanisms.
According to Corporate Knights raw data, Suncor outclassed all corporations along business development lines and came second in employment, again, ahead of Nexen. By doing so, Suncor can be said to be particularly effective at realizing a certain strand of human rights, as direct beneficiaries of Suncor’s operations benefit from the right to work and by virtue of that, the right to an adequate standard of living, all of which are enshrined in the UDHR (Banning et al, 2004). So while rights norms are not prevalent in Suncor’s sustainability reports, it can be argued that Suncor is effective at endorsing a certain strand of rights through its business development and employment policies.
Nexen, on the other hand, outclasses Suncor in the Community Relations indicator. This indicator is comprised of a corporation’s effectiveness during the consultation process. This indicator also is comprised of a corporation’s effort to preserve indigenous culture. Therefore, what can be derived from Corporate Knights data is that the manner in which Nexen implements its policies is superior at preserving the right to culture. Additionally, Nexen’s superior actualization of its consultation policy means that indigenous groups may be able to alter projects or derive benefits from projects that further protects and realizes their right to an adequate standard of living or health (Banning et al, 2004).
Overall, both Nexen and Suncor’s policies help realize certain rights that can be achieved by participating in the market. All oil companies appear to have, for all practical purposes, a homogeneous set of policies which aim at improving their performance along socially conscious lines. However, performance variations occur when policies are actualized. Nexen seems to excel at an approach that is more involving in nature, whereas Suncor’s is more passive and extends directly from its own business activities. It remains less clear from the preceding data if adhering to certain voluntary mechanisms and accepting the norms therein necessarily allows a corporation to positively demarcate itself through its actions. For example, while Nexen employs the term “environment” more frequently than Suncor for the period spanning from 2005-2008, Suncor ranks higher than Nexen for its environmental stewardship according to Corporate Knights raw data. Therefore, no clear link can be made between stated acceptance of socially conscious norms and performance.
Legal Consciousness of Nexen and Suncor
By looking at published material one can get an impression of the legal consciousness of each oil company. For instance, “Suncor respects the languages, customs, political, social and cultural institutions of Aboriginal/Indigenous peoples” (Suncor, 2005: 3). Values of the sort are very much in line with principles enshrined in the UDHR. Based on this statement, it can be argued that Suncor is alluding to its support of Article 2, prohibition of discrimination, and Article 27, right to culture (Banning et al, 2004: 2-3). Few would argue against the respect of these rights. Nexen’s stated adherence to human rights principles is more direct. For example, “Wherever we operate, we demonstrate respect for human rights directly, through our own operations, and indirectly, through our influence on our partners, contractors and suppliers” (Nexen, 2008a: 23). By reading these affirmations, one is given the impression that each are staunch believers and protectors of human rights and that their actions do not interfere on any level with the human rights of others (Fekete, 2009: 7).
A more nuanced understanding of the legal consciousness of Suncor and Nexen can be experienced after speaking with high ranking representatives from both corporations. Of course, corporate legal consciousness cannot be entirely inferred by speaking with one or two representatives from each. As Peter French notes, corporate attributes cannot be derived from the aggregate characteristics of its employees (Weaver, 1998: 87). However, by speaking with employees in positions of influence, one may be able to extrapolate insight into the core normative belief system of these entities.
Conceptualizations of Dignity and Implications for Corporate Notions of Human Rights
Human rights norms stem from the belief that as humans we all possess inherent dignity (Banning et al, 2004). An interview with Jerry Welsh, Manager of Aboriginal Affairs at Suncor, revealed how his conception of dignity was deeply tied to how Suncor realized certain rights. Mr. Welsh stressed, on several instances, that a sense of autonomy, self-sufficiency and wellbeing for indigenous communities can best be achieved through economic development. In fact, a Chief, who spoke to Suncor representatives a week prior to the interview, concurred with that assertion and even ranked economic development as being his community’s number one priority. There was an undeniable sense of pride when Mr. Welsh announced that Suncor recently passed the one billion dollar mark in contracts with “Aboriginal businesses”. Suncor has received accolades because of its economic development potential. The language employed by Mr. Welsh indicates that a real positive metamorphosis has taken place within indigenous communities. “Those people have really been able to get it together and do business with the industry”. This suggests perhaps that those who have not capitalized on this opportunity have somehow failed. Such discourse is divisive in nature, and may help at undermining the claims of those in disagreement with the benefits derived from economic development. From Mr. Welsh’s point of view, the proliferation of indigenous businesses, and their ability to generate employment helps explain labour shortages and why Suncor has not been able to meet its objective of increasing “Aboriginal employment” recently. Overall, Mr. Welsh asserts that this problem can be seen in a positive light, as it is telling of the success of the industry in re-establishing self-sufficiency and dignity in indigenous communities.
An interview with Lloyd Martell, Waterhen Lake First Nation Cree and Manager of Aboriginal Partnerships at Nexen, revealed how in most cases economic development was welcomed by indigenous peoples, as it helped in generating employment and raising standards of living. In many cases, Mr. Martell was held in high esteem by his community members because of the collaborative work he was undertaking. The underlying message is that dignity is directly tied to monetary accumulation, and so oil sands development is an opportunity to be capitalized on.
Additionally, both Suncor and Nexen sponsor employment and educational programs. Mr. Welsh states that for the last 15 years, Suncor has invested $20 000-$25 000 Canadian dollars per community to help fund a summer employment program, to help students “connect the idea of education, money and work”. Meanwhile, Mr. Martell suggests that capacity building of communities is important so that benefits of oil development can be felt after projects are terminated. This is why Nexen has donated money to help build schools. One such school, according to Mr. Martell, has been turned into a “world class” institution after Nexen’s contribution. Furthermore, Nexen provides scholarships for students attending the University of Saskatchewan. To help curb the drop out rate, money is also allocated to Aboriginal Student Centres in schools to assist students in financial difficulty. These are all things that Suncor and Nexen pride themselves on.
Overall, it can be argued that Suncor and Nexen’s conceptualization of dignity is tied to the realization of certain rights. Looking at the UDHR, it can be argued that Suncor and Nexen, through their business activities and policies, support the right to culture, to education, to an adequate standard of living, health and to work (Banning et al, 2004).
The realization of these rights is not necessarily done for altruistic purposes. It can be argued that the realization of these rights directly or indirectly benefits Suncor or Nexen’s operations. For example, financial rewards derived from work opportunities can be seen as a way of lowering resistance to projects while investing in educational programs as a possible way of addressing labour shortages. Nevertheless, benefits do trickle down to the community level, though what is beneficial to some may also be interpreted as being damaging to the health and traditional way of life of Indigenous peoples.
Corporate Interactions with Human Rights Norms & Rights Realization
While Suncor’s Aboriginal Relations Policy does not make specific reference to human rights, Mr. Welsh assured that human rights are not excluded “by any stretch of the imagination”. Mentioning this fact is indicative of a consciousness of human rights norms and law. Mr. Welsh showed an awareness of the UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples. However, he was quick to note that neither Suncor’s policies, nor action choices, were guided by its existence. This was because Canada was not a signatory to the Declaration, and so Suncor invariably felt no need to internalize such principles. Only if Canada were to sign this Declaration would Suncor focus on the implications for its business practices. Therefore, openness to change was evident, yet without governmental leadership the status quo will remain. This is indicative of the reactive nature of some corporations, and that norms, which have a profound impact on business operations, may be met with stronger resistance. From Mr. Welsh’s perspective, international law, set to protect indigenous peoples, is thus seen as a danger to be avoided.
Meanwhile, Darcie Park, Manager of Sustainability Reporting & Assurance at Nexen, acknowledged that industry has a duty to respect the human rights of indigenous peoples, and confirmed adherence to human rights principles. More interestingly, perhaps, was the mention of a “sphere of influence”, whereby Nexen’s human rights obligations were strongest to individuals most closely tied to their operations, like employees and suppliers. Furthermore, Darcie Park articulated how there is a clear divide between the government and corporate responsibilities to protect human rights. This implies that there are set limits as to what a corporation will do to respect human rights.
Finally, Mr. Martell acknowledged that Nexen has a respect for human rights, while it does not adhere to a Eurocentric model. Nexen tries to respect human rights as defined by indigenous communities, and it does so by listening and being responsive to their demands. However, it was noted that not all demands are necessarily listened to, especially those coming from communities which are deemed to not be affected by oil sands extraction. This suggests that not all stakeholders can be accommodated by industry, which limits its rights realization potential.
Corporate Interactions with the Law and Implications for the Consultation Process
Legal consciousness shapes how one interacts and interprets the law (Jacobs, no year). Jerry Welsh mentioned how the consultation process has evolved, and how this has resulted in a shift of responsibilities for corporations. Initially, consultations were conceived as being equivalent to a warning, whereby corporate representatives would notify indigenous leaders that a project would commence in an area that may be of interest to them. At that time no dialogue ensued, nor were interests accommodated for. In this sense, projects could very well be seen as being an imposition by local indigenous communities. However, court cases, and the awareness of court rulings and policy changes, has meant that corporate understandings of consultations have taken on an entirely different meaning and have altered how corporations interact with policies and the law. According to Mr. Welsh, the consultation process is much more participative in nature, allowing for local interests to be increasingly taken into account. Mr. Martell, echoing comments made by Mr. Welsh, asserted that court rulings have modified how consultations take place, and increased corporate responsibilities. In this regard, corporations portray themselves as operating within the confines of the law, all while being benevolent by accommodating local interests. As such, a shield, which immunizes them from scrutiny, is created.
However, despite advances in the consultation process, it can still be considered narrow in scope. Mr. Welsh affirmed that, to his knowledge, no proposed project by Suncor has ever been dropped in the face of resistance by indigenous communities, a view also expressed by Mr. Martell. Of course, oil corporations may have to make small concessions or alterations to their projects but, in the end, their interests seem to take precedence. This is indicative of the fact that there are implicit limits to the extent to which indigenous peoples can influence development outcomes. According to Greg Gilbertson, Operations Leader in the Community and Aboriginal Relations department at the ERCB, this may explain why public hearings are often saturated with tension, especially at the beginning, as a sentiment reigns that “winners” and “losers” will emerge. Mr. Martell further qualified the conundrum surrounding consultations by asserting that problems arise due to the lack of a universal definition to which all stakeholders adhere to.
Rationalizing Development: from a Corporate and Regulatory Perspective
The rationale behind the development of energy projects, from Mr. Welsh’s point of view, can be traced to his conceptualization of traditional land. One can easily justify starting oil sands projects on traditional land because a) the land is owned by the crown and is not recognized by the provincial government as having special status, and b) attributing special status to such a large expanse of land would unreasonably limit the potential for oil sand development. Rationalizing land use in such a way negates the validity of certain provisions in international law which call for indigenous traditional land to be ascribed special status and to be returned to indigenous communities, as done in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Mr. Martell mentioned how the non-static nature of culture may play a part in justifying oil sands extraction. Culture presented in this way helps justify non-adherence to laws which set to protect traditional ways of life. While Mr. Martell acknowledged that indigenous peoples fundamentally remained land based cultures, there is a move away from traditional lifestyles that bring benefits which cannot be neglected. Mr. Martell explained that development requires a compromise, yet gains from development make up for any losses.
Meanwhile, Mr. Gilbertson mentioned that the ERCB takes into consideration indigenous concerns before granting operating licences to proponents of energy projects. Most times objections are raised due to the perceived negative impact a project might have over air or water quality. The location of a project also seems to elicit worry. Mr. Gilbertson mentioned, in relation to a multiple well project, that a study was conducted based on indigenous concern. Results demonstrated how one of the wells would in fact pose a threat to potable water, leading to the prohibition of its construction. This could have been done in an attempt to preserve indigenous culture, health and an adequate standard of living and lifestyle, all rights enshrined in the ICESCR (Banning et al, 2004). According to Mr. Gilbertson, if treaty rights - including hunting and fishing rights - are to come under threat by a project, the ERCB would seriously consider this before granting project approval. Out of about 60 000 energy projects proposed annually, only 10 to 15 projects face enough resistance to warrant a public hearing. Only in the minority of cases do projects ever get cancelled, or are applications withdrawn. From the ERCB’s stance, this is reflective of its great ability to resolve disputes. While this may be true, one may also come to the conclusion that the ERCB too often sides with the interests of corporations, which leaves indigenous communities disproportionately at risk of suffering from the externalities from energy projects, including oil sands.
Greg Gilbertson said that oil sands development, and subsequent land alterations, has the potential to at times enhance indigenous peoples hunting and fishing opportunities, thus protecting their means of subsistence which is a right enshrined in Article 1 of the ICCPR and ICESCR (Banning et al, 2004). Therefore, it becomes easy to rationalize granting project licences if in fact oil sands development is viewed as having the potentiality to secure and improve indigenous treaty rights. Presented in this way, the federal government, which has the fiduciary duty to protect indigenous traditional lifestyles, need not interfere in how oil sands are developed.
Finally, the ERCB operates on the premise that its work should be beneficial for the Albertan public as a whole, and makes no distinctions between subsections of its populace. It is clear that this mandate ignores the fact that indigenous peoples may have differentiated interests, and need special protective measures, to safeguard their rights. From this viewpoint, one may say that the ERBC’s mandate is inadequate (Forest Peoples Programme & Tebetta Foundation, 2006).
4.3 Concluding Remarks
It would appear that adherence to voluntary mechanisms that guide corporate conduct results in the increased acceptance of socially responsible norms, as reflected in the communication tools of corporations. To a certain extent, this could be considered as a good marketing strategy, as it remains unclear whether or not norm acceptance can necessarily be related to performance. Corporations are well positioned to actualize indigenous rights, because of their resource endowments and their direct involvement in the consultation process. However, they endorse a particular strand of human rights, and realize rights which stem from the powers of the market and capital accumulation. Employment and education seem to be at the forefront of corporate rights realization strategies. While this is undeniably beneficial, corporate actions simultaneously trump other rights which may be dear to segments of the indigenous population.
Corporations and regulators both justify extraction in a way that condones the continued expansion and development of oil sands projects. Corporations are also endowed with an astute legal consciousness, allowing them to operate within the confines of the legal system. Moreover, corporations seem able to discredit the value of adhering to other legal provisions which run counter to their operational mandate. Altogether this is problematic for those that see their rights as being tied to a halt in production. This is why consultation processes must be further ameliorated so that rights, as defined by indigenous groups, can be best accommodated.
Chapter 5
Concluding Observations & Further Research
The following chapter critically highlights the implications of the research findings and addresses the research questions. Further research is then proposed, complimentary to what has been undertaken in this thesis.
5.1 Implications
Corporate Limitations
One must be well aware that indigenous peoples do not constitute a homogenous group. So it is too simplistic to purport that oil sand development is an entirely devastating activity in the eyes of indigenous peoples. Of course one may legitimately argue that CSR, or Aboriginal Relations programs, do their fair share in trying to improve the lives of those they affect through their operations in the oil sands. Improvements are best actualized through oil projects, as positive spinoffs accrue to affected communities. This justifies oil sand extraction continuing unabated as corporate notions of human rights favour development. This is understandable considering they are in the business of oil. The implications are that oil corporations favour rights such as the right to work, to an adequate standard of living derived from monetary accumulation, to education through their funding of educational projects, and to culture by financing certain activities that are meant to celebrate indigenous lifestyles and livelihoods (Banning et al, 2004). As such, there is thus no denying the fact that certain segments of the indigenous population have benefited from oil sands extraction (Forest Peoples Programme & Tebetta Foundation, 2006; Kunzig, 2009). For these segments it would appear that the strand of human rights that corporations endorse may at least in part correspond with their aspirations. Nevertheless, oil corporations seem to have internalized a definition of human rights that is favourable to meeting their ends, countering the argument that corporations can act altruistically.
This does not mean that corporations do not exhibit a desire to improve their operations, as exhibited by their adherence to certain regimes or voluntary mechanisms. Nexen, overall, seems to have incorporated more socially responsible norms in its communication tools over time, compared to Suncor. This may be due to its adherence to voluntary mechanisms guiding corporate conduct, including the UN Global Compact and IPIECA. However, both companies engage in similar activities which lie outside the traditional realm of business, allowing them to appropriate principles propagated in human rights discourse (Merry, 2006b). Whether norm acceptance later translates into better performance remains unclear. Yet there is at least a superficial intent to improve, which can be seen as a marketing strategy. Overall, Suncor does not reflect its adherence to socially responsible norms in its communication tools to the same extent as Nexen. Yet, according Corporate Knights, it ranks higher than the latter in terms of its overall performance.
Perhaps part of the reason why performance is not necessarily positively correlated with adherence to regimes or voluntary mechanisms goes back to the critique that they lack the teeth necessary to guarantee compliance. Furthermore, international law seems ill equipped, at the moment, for holding corporations accountable for human rights violations. This is problematic considering the negative impacts that can stem from various business operations.
Additionally, the acceptance of socially conscious norms by corporate entities may depend on the nature of the industry. Oil as a consumptive good is integral to society and, as such, the industry may be able to afford resistance to norm acceptance without having to bare severe repercussions from consumer backlash. Oil corporations thus exhibit an evolutionary lethargy that may limit their potential to actualize certain rights which are incongruous with their operations.
CSR policies, or Aboriginal Relations programs, are not adequate in addressing the entire range of concerns emerging from indigenous groups. Some segments of the indigenous communities favour a notion of human rights which is diametrically opposite to the one endorsed by corporations, as they call for a halt to further development to ensure their rights are secured. The simple presence of an oil sands project has the potential to disrupt indigenous peoples’ relationship with the land which has consequences for their rights to an adequate standard of living and health, to culture, and for those who depend on the land for hunting, poaching and fishing, the right to work.
Generally, it appears that improvements may be further constrained by corporation’s desire to maximize profits. Thus corporations desire to do “good” can only be actualized in certain ways. This is consistent with Voiculescu’s (2006) idea that human rights are being privatized in a way that allows corporations to choose the content and manner in which to actualize certain human rights norms. Voluntary mechanisms, which require self control, allow for a greater range of potential actions to be considered. So while voluntary mechanisms are good to a certain extent, control from outside forces should be imposed in order to avoid unacceptable costs to society (Vickers, 1973).
While corporations acknowledge that they have a role to play in the protection of human rights, there seems to be a general consensus among oil companies that the primary duty to protect human rights rests on the state (IPIECA, 2008: 18). Thus, there are limits to what corporations will do to guarantee the rights of those affected by their operations. This gap should be attended to by government intervention, which should place more stringent regulations on corporations, especially when their operations come into conflict with the rights of vulnerable groups, such as indigenous peoples.
Finally, it is problematic that the ERCB operates on the premise that general public interest should be maximized. This justifies continued extraction and expansion of the oil sands, as benefits do accrue to society at large. However, this leads to the quantification of resources, which from an indigenous perspective are non-quantifiable. Treating every citizen uniformly denies the differentiated nature of indigenous interests, and invariably neutralizes their need to benefit from special protective measures to safeguard their culture, lifestyle and wellbeing, of which all are derived from the land (Forest Peoples Programme & Tebtebba Foundation, 2006). Indigenous peoples are disproportionately affected by oil sands projects because of their sheer proximity to them, which further supports their need to benefit from special protective measures. Current regulations can thus be viewed as being discriminatory.
On another note, oil corporations are apt at navigating within the confines of the law. Consultations follow protocol and are participatory. Furthermore, traditional land is viewed as not having special status, limiting their obligations towards indigenous peoples. This also helps corporations contour international law instruments which set to recognize traditional land as belonging to indigenous peoples. This has special implications for indigenous peoples that still use land for hunting and ceremonies, as it can negatively impact their right to culture and subsistence. Finally, the non-static portrayal of culture by industry helps to justify extraction. Industry thus becomes a vehicle for change, as archaic traditional lifestyles are erased in favour of modern ones.
The following proposition to the government recognises the differentiated nature of indigenous interests, and, can be seen as a protective measure to safeguard their rights, as defined by them.
Recommendations to the Federal and Provincial Governments
It is fair to make the assertion that governments, now more than ever, need the business world to collaborate in addressing issues such as environmental protection and human rights abuses (Voiculescu, 2006). In this regard, it may be encouraging to see the emergence of voluntary mechanisms or regimes guiding corporate conduct. Yet, instead of withdrawing and letting corporations operate on their own terms, governments must remain vigilant in identifying corporate policy gaps, and to actively participate in regulating omissions. Protecting rights remains the primary duty of the state, and as it stands, Canada seems ineffective in addressing the entire range of concerns emitting from indigenous groups.
Clayton Thomas Muller, indigenous oil campaign organizer of the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN), put forward a variety of suggestions that the federal government should follow to help protect the rights of indigenous peoples affected by oil sands extraction: signing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, better honouring treaty rights, bolstering the consultation process, meeting Kyoto obligations and shifting to a more sustainable energy future. However, for the purposes of this research, one of these options is especially relevant and will be elaborated below.
Despite Alberta having a fairly comprehensive consultation policy, the manner in which it is currently undertaken seems strictly procedural and does not seem to give substantive power to all stakeholders. As mentioned by Professor Corntassel of UVic, there is currently hesitation to participate in a process where outcomes already seem predetermined. Consultation outcomes thus seem to lack legitimacy. This is why it is primordial to adopt a consultation policy which all stakeholders deem to be fair.
Mr. Muller, of the IEN, noted that the consultation process has improved but that there still is room for improvement. In fact, consultations should be taking place even prior to the provincial government selling leases to companies. Once leases are sold, a clear intent to start development projects is made, and the chances that indigenous peoples can sufficiently alter projects, to protect their rights, are greatly diminished. Consultation is the most instrumental activity in deciding how indigenous rights can be realized. Because the provincial government determines how resources are used within its jurisdiction, the Alberta government must bolster the consultation process to allow parties to negotiate on equal terms, in order to balance asymmetric power relations which have pervaded interactions in the past. This is a directive that should come from the federal government. Otherwise outcomes - which require compromise - will always seemingly favour industry and governmental interests. Meaningful consultations can only take place if indigenous peoples, those directly affected by oil sands development, can legitimately exercise their right to say “no” to any proposed energy project (Tamang, 2005). Only then can negotiations proceed in a manner where outcomes are representative of indigenous self-articulated needs.
From an industry perspective, granting this right may not be so problematic, if development is embraced like they portray it to be. In this case, projects can proceed largely unaltered and communities can benefit from those rights which are derived from oil sands development. Alternatively, if resistance from communities is predominant, then having the right to veto a project implies that they may be able to change development outcomes sufficiently to guarantee the protection of rights which are dear to them. If negotiation outcomes are unsatisfactory, then a project would simply be cancelled.
In summary, while corporations are effective in guaranteeing some rights, this paper has demonstrated that all rights must be realized for indigenous peoples. To achieve this realization, both the provincial and federal governments need to be more actively involved in oil sands development and entirely devoted to correcting asymmetric power relations by bolstering the consultation process.
5.2 Further Research
Role of NGOs
While a call for policy change has been made, it is important to evaluate the role of different actors in trying to ameliorate the situation. Sikkink (1993) discusses the benefits of NGO networks. Not surprisingly then, all NGOs contacted for this thesis affirmed having beneficial ties with each other. Joint efforts allowed NGOs to: share information, discuss mobilization efforts, write joint press releases, conduct consultations and initiate lawsuits. Mr. Dave Burkhart an Oil Sands Advisor for WWF Canada, mentioned how networking increased WWF’s profile, with respect to oil sands issues. This is a positive considering the importance of the issue at hand. However, this begs the question: are there other activities, not currently undertaken on a joint basis, which can help incite change?
While many NGOs claim that beneficial activities take place, jointly, it is curious to know that NGO influence on corporations is seen as nonexistent, or limited, at best. Simon Dyer, oil sands program director of the Pembina Institute, mentions how industry has not displayed the leadership required to make voluntary changes. Meanwhile, discourse changes were seen as public relations moves. One respondent mentioned how carbon capture and storage is presented as a panacea, even though it is an unproven technology. Overall, should NGOs continue to target corporations, or are resources being wasted considering their reluctance to change? Perhaps alternative strategies should also be considered in instigating change. This raises another question: does investing in a corporation you oppose, represent a viable option to incite change?
Meanwhile, employees of NGOs were divided in their perceived ability to change governmental discourse or policies. Pembina Institute, amongst others, reported having had a positive influence on government actions and discourse. Simon Dyer noted that, for the most part, discourse remained stagnant in public arenas, yet “behind the scenes” there were indications of progressive thought and awareness for the need to change. Its work contributed to positive changes in provincial policy with regard to tailings management, land use planning and water management. The Institute claimed that lawsuits were the most effective type of action in creating change. Mr. Dyer also said that change could be best initiated by discussing issues with government representatives outside of Canada. This suggests that norm acceptance by a government can be accelerated if it is surrounded by peers that espouse the norm in question. From this point one may ask: which arenas provide the best opportunity for government to respond to the concerns of civil society?
On another note, NGOs, for the most part, target their advocacy work to several stakeholders. Targeting most often accrued to government representatives, corporate representatives and the general public at large. Furthermore, the majority of respondents framed the oil sands issue along several lines. Most often, oil sands were seen as being both an environmental and a sustainability issue. Others felt that oil sands, was more of a human rights/indigenous rights issue, or an economic issue. This is illustrative of the fact that oil sands extraction is a multi-dimensional problem, attracting concern from a wide range of actors with varying concerns. Based on this one may ask: does having multiple frames, or targets, dilute the potentiality to incite change?
Finally, respondents unanimously mention that the public still lacks knowledge surrounding oil sands extraction, even though they are seen as being generally receptive to messages by NGOs. Interestingly, Pembina Institute attributes this lack of knowledge to misleading, selective or inaccurate information being distributed by industry and government. This is problematic in that it creates a knowledge gap which is an impediment to norm creation. From here two questions arise: What channels of information flows, not currently considered, allow for messages to reach target audiences? How does one ensure that government is held accountable for not distributing relevant information pertaining to the oil sands?
The preceding issues discussed are meant to serve as a launching pad for future research, its purpose to further advance the debate surrounding the oil sands and to stimulate actions which could result in more adequate management, both from a rights and environmental perspective (see Appendix 4 for survey).
References
Acquier, A. & Aggeri, F. (2007), ‘The Development of a CSR Industry: Legitimacy and Feasibility as the Two Pillars of the Institutionalization Process’, In: Hond, F., Bakker, F., Neergaard, P. Managing Corporate Social Responsibility in Action. Hamshire, England: Ashgate, pp.149- 165.
AGS (2009), ‘Alberta Oil Sands’, Alberta Geological Survey, July 21, 2009, Available from: last checked on [October 23, 2009].
Alberta (no year), ‘Alberta’s Oil Sands’, Alberta, Available from: last checked on [August 19, 2009].
Alberta (2008), ‘Alberta issues first-ever oil sands land reclamation certificate’, Alberta, March 19, 2008, Available from: last checked on [September 13, 2009].
Alberta Cancer Board (2009), ‘Cancer Incidence in Fort Chipewyan, Alberta, 1995-2006’, Alberta Health Services, Available from: last checked on [August 19, 2009].
Alberta Energy (2008), ‘Launching Alberta’s Energy Future: Provincial Energy Strategy’, Alberta Energy, December, 2008, Available from: last checked on [August 19, 2009].
Alberta Energy (2009), ‘Aboriginal Relations’, Alberta Energy, May 12, 2009, Available from: last checked on [August 13, 2009].
Amnesty International (1998), ‘Principes relatifs aux droits humains a l’intention des entreprises’, Amnesty International, janvier 1998, Available from: last checked on [August 5, 2009].
Amnesty International (2003), ‘‘Time is wasting’: Respect for the land rights of the Lubicon Cree long overdue’ Amnesty International, April 2003, Available from: last checked on [August 17, 2009].
Appenzeller, T. (2004), ‘End of Cheap Oil’, National Geographic, June 2004, Available from: last checked on [August 18, 2009].
Bakker, F., Ohlsson, C., Hond, F., Tengblad, S. & Turcotte, M. (2007), ‘Tracing the Evolution of Corporate Discourse on Corporate Social Responsibility: A Longitudinal, Lexicological Study’, In: Hond, F., Bakker, F., Neergaard, P. ed. Managing Corporate Social Responsibility in Action: Taking Doing and Measuring. Wiltshire, United Kingdom: Ashgate, pp.53-73.
Banning, T., Sepulveda, M., Gudmundsdottir, G. and Chamound, C. (2004), Human Rights Instruments, 6th edition, Costa Rica: University for Peace.
Best, J. & Hoberg, G. (2008), ‘Alberta’s Oil Sands: Key Issues and Impacts’, Mapleleafweb, June 18, 2008, Available from: last checked on [March 4, 2009].
Bell, S. (2009), ‘Athabasca Chipewyan Right on Court Case’, Slave River Journal, August 25, 2009, Available from: last checked on [September 3, 2009].
Brown, J., Chasek, P., Downie, D. (2006), ‘Global Environmental Politics’, 4th Edition, Westview Press.
Buhr, H. & Grafstrom, M. (2007), ‘The making of meaning in the media: the case of Corporate social responsibility in the financial times’, In: Hond, F., Bakker, F., Neergaard, P. ed. Managing Corporate Social Responsibility in Action: Taking Doing and Measuring. Wiltshire, United Kingdom: Ashgate, pp.15-31.
Canada (2009), ‘40th Parliament, 2nd Session: Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development’, Canada, Wednesday, May 13, 2009, Available from: last check on [August 18, 2009].
Canada (2009a), ‘40th Parliament, 2nd Session: Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development’, Canada, Tuesday, May 12, 2009, Available from: last checked on [August 18, 2009].
Castellano, B. (2004), ‘Ethics of Aboriginal Research’ Journal of Aboriginal Health’, pp.98-114.
CBC (2008), ‘First Nation Takes province to court over oilsands leasing’, CBC News, December 11, 2008, available from: last checked on [August 17, 2009].
Clapham, A. (2006), Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors, Oxford University Press.
Corntassel, J. (2008), ‘Towards Sustainable Self-Determination: Rethinking the Contemporary Indigenous-Rights Discourse’, Alternatives 33, pp.105- 132.
Corntassel, J. (2009), 'RE: inquiry' e-mail dated October 13, 2009, on file with author.
Corporate Knights (no year), ‘About us’, Corporate Knights, Available from: last checked on [October 2, 2009].
CSR Wire (2001), ‘Suncor oil sands achieves goal for aboriginal business Devel opment’, Suncor Energy, May 23, 2001, Available from: last checked on [August 18, 2009].
Economist (2009), ‘A sticky ending for the tar sands’, Economist, January 15, 2009, Available from: last checked on [July 17, 2009].
Edemariam, A. (2007), ‘Mud, sweat and tears’, The Guardian, October 30, 2007, Available from: last checked on [July 17, 2009].
Elias, P. (1996), ‘Worklessness and Social Pathologies in Aboriginal Communities’, Human Organization, Vol. 55, No.1, pp.13-24.
ERCB (2008), ‘ERCB Directive 056: Energy Development Applications and Schedules’, ERCB, Available from: last checked on [September 3, 2009].
ERCB (2008a), ‘EnerGAQs 1: What is the Energy Resources Conservation Board’, ERCB, Available from: last checked on [September 8, 2009].
ERCB (2008b), ‘EnerFAQs 2: having Your Say at an ERCB hearing’, ERCB, Available from: last checked on [September 8, 2009].
ERCB (2009), ‘Oil Sands’, ERCB, available from: [] last checked on [September 13, 2009].
Fekete, S. (2009), ‘Ecuador’s Liquid Gold’, class essay: 4303 Realising Human Rights: Principles and Practices of Social Justice, June 30, 2009, on file with author.
Forest Peoples Programme & Tebtebba Foundation (2006), ‘Indigenous Peoples’ Rights, Extractive Industries and Transnational and Other Business Enterprises: A Submission to the Special Representative of the Secretary General on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises’, December 29, 2009, Available from: last checked on [March 24, 2009].
Francis, J., Shin, M. (2009), ‘Native Soil’, Corporate Knights Aboriginal Relations Ranking: Extractive Industries, Spring 2009, Available from: last checked on [September 13, 2009].
Fraser Milner Casgrain (2005), ‘Focus on Aboriginal Law’, FMC, November 2005, Available from: last checked on [September 13, 2009].
GRI (no year), ‘G3: Human Rights’, GRI, Available from: last checked on [September 1, 2009].
GRI (2007), ‘Sustainability Reporting 10 years on’, Available from: < > last checked on [September 1, 2009].
Government of Alberta (2005), ‘The Government of Alberta’s First Nations Consultation Policy on Land Management and Resource Development’, Alberta, May 16, 2005, Available from: last checked on [August 17, 2009].
Government of Alberta (2009), ‘Oil Sands’, Alberta, October 16, 2009, Available from: last checked on [November 9, 2009].
Government of Canada (2008), ‘Treaty No. 8 Made June 21, 1899 and Adhesions, Reports, Etc, 1966’, Canada, November 3, 2008, Available from: last checked on [May 7, 2009].
Government of Canada (2009), ‘Canada’s Position: United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’, Government of Canada, March 16, 2009, Available from: last checked on [September 29, 2009].
Guly, C. (2005), ‘Alberta Eyes Asia for Oil’, Embassy Report, Wednesday, November 2, 2005, Available from: last checked on [September 13, 2009].
Haggett, S. (2009), ‘High cancer rate near oil sands confirmed’, Reuters, February 6, 2009, Available from: last checked on [March 12, 2009].
Herrmann, P. (1995), ‘Human Environmental Crisis and the transnational corporation: The question of culpability’, Human Ecology, Vol.23, No.2, pp.285-289.
IEA (2005), ‘IEA commends Canada’s Competitive energy markets and calls on the federal government to strengthen its efforts in shaping consensus on important energy policy issues’, IEA, Available from: last checked on [August 2, 2009].
IEN (no year), ‘Bloody Oil’, IEN, Available from: last checked on [August 28, 2009].
IEN (2009), ‘PM and Ministers turn blind eye to First Nations Tar Sands Concerns’, IEN, January 15, 2009, Available from: last checked on [July 20, 2009].
IFC (2007), ‘ILO Convention 169 and the Private Sector: Questions and Answers for IFC Clients’, International Finance Corporation, March 2007, Available from: last checked on [September 29, 2009].
ILO (2006), ‘Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy’, ILO, Available from: last checked on [August 8, 2009].
ILO (2006a), ‘C169 Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989’, ILO, Available from: < > last checked on [September 29, 2009].
IPIECA (no year), ‘About us’, IPIECA, Available from: last checked on [September 1, 2009].
IPEICA (2008), ‘Human Rights and Ethics’, IPIECA, Available from: last checked on [August 31, 2009].
Jacobs, L. (no year), ‘Differentiated Corporate Legal Consciousness in International Human Rights Disputes: Security and Transnational Oil Companies in Sudan’, The Asia Pacific Program on Dispute Resolution Research, Vol.1.3, pp.37-49.
Jimenez, I. (2004), ‘North American first peoples: slipping up into market citizenship?’, Citizenship Studies, 8:4, pp.349-365.
Jowit, J. (2009), ‘Indigenous people in legal challenge against oil firms over tar sand project’, Guardian, February 26, 2009, Available from: last checked on [August 18, 2009].
Kairos Canada (2009), ‘Tar Sands Delegation Statement: A call for responsibility and sustainability’, Kairos, Available from: last checked on [August 28, 2009].
Kairos Canada (2009a), ‘Canada’s Record on Indigenous Rights Questioned at UN Human Rights Council’, Kairos, Available from: last checked on [August 28, 2009].
Kunzig, R. (2009), ‘The Canadian Oil Boom Scrapping the Bottom’, National Geograhic, March, 2009, pp. 34-59.
Mass, T. (2009), ‘Brief to House of Commons Standing Committee on
Environment and Sustainable Development Hearings on Oil Sands and Water Issues’, WWF-Canada, May 6, 2009, Available from: last checked on [August 28, 2009].
McCullum, H. (no year), ‘Fueling Fortress America: A Report on the Atha basca Tar Sands and U.S. Demands for Canada’s Energy’, Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives, no year, Available from: last checked on [May 5, 2009].
McLeod, B. (no year), ‘Natural Resources Transfer Act: A Unilateral Decision’, Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, no year, Available from: last checked on [September 8, 2009].
Merry, S. (2001), ‘Rights, Religion, and Community: Approaches to Violence against Women in the Context of Globalization’, Law & Society Review, Vol.35, No.1, pp.39-88
Merry, S. (2006), ‘Human Rights and Gender Violence. Translating interna tional law into local justice.’ Chicago and London, University of Chi cago Press.
Merry, Sally Engle (2006b), ‘Introduction: Culture and transnationalism’, in Human rights and gender violence: translating international law into local justice, University of Chicago, pp. 1-35.
Minority Rights Group International (2007), ‘World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples - Canada: Overview, 2007’, UNHCR, Available at: last checked on [September 29, 2009].
Morin, I. (1988), ‘Lubicon Land Claim Talks Back on Track’, Saskatchewan Indian, December 1988, Available from: last checked on [August 17, 2009].
Nexen (no year), ‘Human Rights’, Nexen, Available from: last checked on [August 10, 2009].
Nexen (2007), ‘Human Rights’, Nexen, Available from: last checked on [August 10, 2009].
Nexen (2007a), ‘Aboriginal Partnerships’, Nexen, Available from: last checked on [August 10, 2009].
Nexen (2007b), ‘International Code of Ethics for Canadian Businesses’, Nexen, Available from: last checked on [August 31, 2009].
Nexen (2007c), ‘What we Report’, Nexen, Available from: last checked on [September 13, 2009].
Nexen (2008), ‘Expert/Stakeholder advisory group review statement’, Nexen, Available from: last checked on [August 10, 2009].
Nexen (2008a), ‘2008 Sustainability Summary Report: Balance’, Nexen, Available from: last checked on [August 11, 2009].
Nexen (2009), ‘About us’, Nexen, Available from: last checked on [August 10, 2009].
Nexen (2009a), ‘Athabasca Oil Sands Overview’, Nexen, Available from last checked on [August 31, 2009].
OECD (no year), ‘OECD Declaration and Decisions on International Investment and Multinational Enterprises’, OECD, Available from: last checked on [August 8, 2009].
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2007), ‘Submission to the 70th Session of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination with regard to Lack of Canadian Compliance with UN Human Rights Decisions and General Recommendation No. 23 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination’, Available from: last checked on [August 17, 2009].
Oil Sands Truth (no year), ‘Tar sands 101’, Oil Sands Truth, Available from: last checked on [August 28, 2009].
Pembina Institute (2007), ‘Oil Sands: An Overview’, Pembina Institute, Available from: last checked on [August 27, 2009].
Pembina Institute (2009), ‘Written Submission: Federal Parliamentary Commit tee Hearing on Water and the Oil Sands’, Pembina Institute, Available from: last checked on [August 27, 2009].
Petersen, K. (2007), ‘Oil Versus Water’, The Dominion, October 15, 2007, Available from: last checked on [March 19, 2009].
Peterson, J. (2005), ‘Canada’s Trade Commissioners: Opening Doors for Canada’s Oil and Gas Abroad’, Embassy Report, Wednesday, November 2, 2005, Available from: last checked on [September 13, 2009].
Ruggie, J.G. (2004), ‘Reconstituting the Global Public Domain: Issues, Actors and Practices’, Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative: working paper No.6. Cambridge, MA: John F Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, pp.1-48.
Sandborn, T. (2008), ‘First Nations Lawsuit could shut down the tar sands’, Climate and Capitalism, July 28, 2008, Available from: last checked on [August 17, 2009].
Shell (no year), ‘Shell Canada limited statement of principles aboriginal affairs’, Shell, Available from: last checked on [August 18, 2009].
Shell (2006), ‘Shell Canada Limited: 2006 Sustainable Development Report’, Shell, Available from: last checked on [August 12, 2009].
Sikkink, K. & Keck, M (1999), ‘Transnational advocacy networks in international and regional politics’, UNESCO, Blackwell Publishers, pp.89-101.
Sikkink, K. (1998), ‘Transnational Politics, International Relations Theory, and Human Rights’ Political Science and Politics, Vol.31, No.3, pp.516-523.
Sikkink, K. (1993), ‘Human Rights, Principled Issue-Networks, and Sovereignty in Latin America’, International Organization, Vol.47, No. 3, pp.411-441.
Silbey, S. (2008), ‘Legal Consciousness’, New Oxford Companion to Law, Oxford University Press.pp.1-2 available from: [], last checked on [June 30, 2009].
Stainsby, M. (no year), ‘Tar Sands and Water: Fort Mackay and Fort Chipewyan’, Oil Sands Truth, Available from: last checked on [August 18, 2009].
Stavenhagen, R. (2002), ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of Indigenous people’, Inquiries and Reports – United Nations, February 2002, Available from: last checked on [August 15, 2009].
Steinhardt, R.G. (2005), ‘Corporate responsibility and the international law of human rights: the New Lex Mercatoria’, in Alston, P. (Eds), Non-state Actors and Human Rights, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp.177-226.
Suncor Energy (no year), ‘The oil sands story (1960s, 1970s, 1980s)’, Suncor, Available from: last checked on [August 5, 2009].
Suncor Energy (no year 1), ‘Energy for the Future (1990s & 2000s)’, Suncor, Available from: last checked on [August 5, 2009].
Suncor Energy (no year 2), ‘Human Rights’, Suncor, Available from: last checked on [September 7, 2009].
Suncor Energy (2005), ‘Aboriginal Affairs Policy’, Suncor, Available from: last checked on [August 18, 2009].
Suncor (2007), ‘A closer look at our journey toward sustainable development’, 2007 Sustainability Report.
Suncor (2009), ‘Suncor Energy on track to realize efficiency targets from merger with Petro Canada’, Suncor, Available from: last checked on [September 7, 2009].
Tamang, P. (2005), ‘An Overview of the Principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent and Indigenous Peoples in International and Domestic Law and Practices’, United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, January 17-19, Available from: last checked on[ September 14, 2009].
Tar Sands Watch (2008), ‘Alberta aboriginals file court challenge to province's system of oilsands leasing’, Tar Sands Watch, Available from: last checked on [September 3, 2009].
UN (no year), ‘Participants and Stakeholders’, UN, Available from: last checked on [August 31, 2009].
UN (no year 1), ‘Participants and Stakeholders’, UN, Available from: last checked on [September 13, 2009].
UN (no year 2), ‘United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’, UN, Available from: last checked on [September 29, 2009].
UN (2003), ‘Economic, Social and cultural Rights: Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights’, UN, Available from: last checked on [August 8, 2009].
UN (2006), ‘United Nations Global Compact’, UN, Available from: last checked on [August 8, 2009].
UN (2009), ‘United Nations Treaty Collection’, UN, Available from: last checked on [August 15, 2009].
UNAHI (2008), ‘Quotes about the Environment’, The United Association of Higaonon Tribes, Available from: last checked on [October 23, 2009].
Vickers, G. (1973), ‘Values, Norms and Policies’, Policy Sciences, Vol.4, No.1, pp.103-111.
Voiculescu, A. (2006), ‘Privatizing human rights? The role of corporate codes of conduct’, In: Williams, Lucy ed. International Poverty Law: an emerging discourse. London, UK: Zed Books Ltd, pp. 176–209.
Walia, H. (2009), ‘Really, Harper: Canada has No History of Colonialism?’, The Dominion, September 28, 2009, Available from: last checked on [September 29, 2009].
Weaver, W. (1998), ‘Corporations as Intentional Systems’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol.17, No.1, pp.87-97
Weissbrodt & Kruger (2005), ‘Human Rights Responsibilities of Businesses as Non-State Actors’, In Alston (ed.) Non-State Actors and Human Rights, Oxford, pp.315-350.
Wells, C. & Elias, J. (2005), ‘Catching the Conscience of the King: Corporate players on the International Stage’, In Non-State Actors and Human Rights. Ed Alston. Oxford University Press, pp.141-175.
Woynillowicz, D. (2005), ‘Oil Sands Fever: the Environmental Implications of Canada’s Oil Sands Rush’, The Pembina Institute, November 2005, Available from: last checked on [March 3, 2009].
WWF (2007), ‘Oil sands pushing Canada further from Kyoto, WWF and UK think-tank warn’, WWF, Available from: last checked on [August 28, 2009].
Youtube (no year), ‘Alberta Oil Sands featured on 60 minutes’, Available from: < > last checked on [August 19, 2009].
Youtube (2008), ‘Alberta’s Oil Sands’, People & Power, March 12, 2008, Available from: last checked on [August 19, 2009].
Bibliography
Acharya, A. (2004), ‘How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism’, International Organization, Vol.58, No.2, pp.239-275.
Adams, W., Hutton, J. (2007), ‘People, Parks and Poverty: Political Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation’, Conservation and Society, Vol. 5, No.2, pp.147-183.
Adamson, J., Evans, M.M., Stein, R. (2002), ‘The Environmental Justice Reader: Politics Poetrics & Pedagogy’, The University of Arizona Press.
Agudo, C. (2003), ‘Environment and Human Rights’ Parliamentary Assembly, April 16, 2003, available from: last checked on: [August 14, 2009].
Baru, S. (1994), ‘North American Free Trade Agreements: Canada’s Fear’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 29, No.10, pp.541-542.
Cameron, J. & Ojha, H. (2007), ‘A deliberative ethic for development: A Nepalese journey from Bourdieu through Kant to Dewey and Habermas’, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol.34, No. ½, pp.66-87.
Canada (2003), ‘Appendix G: Employment equity in Canada: Women and minority groups in the Canadian labour market’, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, March 3, 2003, Available from: last checked on [August 30, 2009].
Gilbert, R. (2009), ‘Oilsands slowdown to spread, Canadian Energy Research Institute says’, Daily Commercial News, March 11, 2009, Available from: last checked on [May 16, 2009].
GOV. OF CANADA (2009), ‘Overview of Canada’s Energy Policy’, Available from: last checked on [June 4, 2009].
GOV. OF CANADA (2009), ‘Chapter 6 – The North American Free Trade Agreement’, Available from: last checked on [July 17, 2009].
Johnston, B. (1995), ‘Human Rights and the Environment’, Human Ecology, Vol.23, No.2, pp.111-123.
McColl, D. (2009), ‘The Eye of the Beholder: Oil Sands Calamity or Golden Opportunity?’, Canadian Energy Research Institute, February 2009, Available from: last checked on [May 12, 2009].
Merry, S. (2006a), ‘Transnational Human Rights and Local Activism: Mapping the Middle’, American Anthropologist, Vol.108, Issue 1, pp.38-51.
Moder, K-H. (2005), ‘Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises with regard to Human rights’, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Available from: last checked on [August 8, 2009].
Myntti, K. (2002), ‘BEP Indigenous Development Report-The Right of Indigenous Peoples to Participation in Development-An overview of International Human Rights Instruments’ Institute for Human Rights, Abo Akademi University, October 2002, Available from: last checked on: September 3, 2009.
Parekh, B. (2005), ‘Pluralist Universalism and Human Rights’, in R. Smith and C. van den Anker (eds.), The Essentials of Human Rights, London, Hodder & Stoughton, pp.284-286.
Phillips, S. (2008), ‘Alberta energy minister forced to retract ‘slanderous’ statements’, Sierra Club, May 1, 2008, Available from: last checked on [July 31, 2009].
Rallapalli, K., Vitell, S., Szeinbach, S. (2000), ‘Marketers Norms and Personal Values: An Empirical Study of Marketing Professionals’ Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 24, No.1, pp.65-75
Santos, Boaventura de Sousa, Joao Arriscado Nunes and Maria Paula Meneses (2007), ‘Introduction: Opening Up the Canon of Knowledge and Recognition of Difference’ in Boaventura de Sousa Santos (ed). Another Knowledge is Possible. Pp.x-xxxix. London and Ne York: Verso.
Scoffield, H (2008), ‘Canada Urged to amass oil wealth’, Globe and Mail, June 11, 2008.
Vukasovic, V. (no year), ‘Human Rights and Environmental Issues’, UN University, Available from: last checked on [February 15, 2009].
Wolfgang, S. (2003), ‘Environment and Human Rights’, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment, Energy, Available from: last checked on: [August 14, 2009].
Appendix 1: Photos of Oil Sands
[pic]
Source:
[pic]
Source:
[pic]
Source:
[pic]
Source:
Appendix 2: Word Count in Sustainability Reports
The following is the total word count in each sustainability report from the years spanning 2001-2008, for both Nexen and Suncor:
|Nexen |p.40 |p.40 |p.36 |p.55 |
|Word/Year |2001-2002 |2003-2004 |2005-2006 |2007-2008 |
|Human Rights |6 |6 |8 |0 |
|Aboriginal |49 |51 |50 |13 |
|Indigenous |2 |4 |2 |0 |
|Consultation |9 |4 |8 |1 |
|Environment |54 |54 |60 |5 |
|Sustainability |48 |53 |102 |23 |
|Integrity |5 |5 |6 |2 |
* Please note that Suncor releases a sustainability report every two years.
Appendix 3: Interview Information
All interviews were conducted over the telephone and lasted between 30 minutes-90 minutes in time. Interviews were semi-structured. Here is a list, in chronological order, of the names of interviewees, their title and date the interview was conducted.
• Jerry Welsh, Aboriginal Affairs manager at Suncor, was done on August 6, 2009.
• Greg Gilbertson, Operations Leader in the Community and Aboriginal Relations department at the Energy Resource Conservation Board, was done on September 3, 2009.
• Darcie Park, Manager of Sustainability Reporting & Assurance at Nexen, was done on September 4, 2009.
• Clayton Thomas Muller, indigenous oil campaign organizer for the Indigenous Environment Network, was done on September 8, 2009.
• Jeff Corntassel, Cherokee Professor in Indigenous Governance Masters Program at the University of Victoria, was done on October 13, 2009.
• Lloyd Martell, Manager of Aboriginal Partnerships at Nexen, was done on October 23, 2009.
Appendix 4: NGO Survey
The following survey was sent to 15 NGOs which were against oil sand development. Yet limited responses (6) meant that I had to relegate these findings to the future research section as it was hard to extrapolate relevant information. However, information collected was insightful and could serve as a basis for future research. Here is a copy of the survey:
Questionnaire:
The following survey will be used to further understand the role of NGOs in diffusing norms and see if these are appropriated by government/corporations. The context of interest is oil sand extraction in Canada’s Athabasca region. This survey should take you no more than 20 minutes; there are 16 questions in total. All answers will remain confidential. Please highlight the answer(s) that best represents your view and put it in bold. Thank you for your participation.
1. Your advocacy work is targeted to whom?
a) Government
b) Corporate Sector
c) Public
d) All of the above
e) Other: please specify:
2. How receptive do you feel your target audience is to your message?
a) Extremely receptive
b) Very receptive
c) Some signs of interest
d) Not very receptive
e) They are not receptive
3. What is the underlying value which drives your mission?
a) Care
b) Responsibility
c) Justice
d) Concern
e) All of the above
f) Other: please specify:
4. How do you frame the oil sands issue?
a) an environmental issue
b) a general human rights issue
c) Indigenous rights
d) a question of sustainability
e) a question of economics
f) all of the above
g) Other: please specify:
5. Other than how you contextualize or frame the issue, is there another frame which you feel is effective in generating attention for the oil sands issue and triggering change in corporate/governmental policy? Briefly explain.
6. What kinds of action do you feel are most effective in creating the change you would like to see in the oil sands industry?
a) Boycotts
b) Protests
c) Petitions
d) Consultation
e) Dialogue with government
f) Dialogue with corporate representatives
g) Lawsuits
h) All of the above
i) Other: please specify:
7. Do you have links/relationships with other NGOs? (If No, then skip to question 12).
a) Yes
b) No
If yes with who (cite a few examples):
8. Do you engage in information sharing?
a) Yes
b) No
If yes with who (cite a few examples):
9. What kind of information do you exchange?
10. What other activities do you engage in on a joint basis?
11. Has this network been beneficial for you as an organization?
a) Yes
b) No
c) Do not know
If Yes how so:
12. Do you feel like your advocacy work has contributed to changing provincial or national policy? (If this question does not apply to your organization please skip to question 14)
a) Yes
b) No
c) Do not know
If Yes how so:
13. Do you feel like there has been a positive shift in governmental discourse because of your advocacy work?
a) Yes
b) No
c) Do not know
If Yes how so:
14. Do you feel like your advocacy work has contributed to changing corporate practices? (If this question does not apply to your organization please skip to question 16).
a) Yes
b) No
c) Do not know
If Yes how so:
15. Do you feel like there has been a positive shift in the discourse of corporations as a result of your advocacy work?
a) Yes
b) No
c) Do not know
If Yes how so:
16. How would you rate the level of knowledge of the general public on the issues surrounding oil sands?
a) Very well informed
b) Well informed
c) Lacking awareness, but some knowledge
d) Not very well informed
e) Not informed at all
Thank you very much for your participation.
-----------------------
[1] Based on an e-mail dated October 13, 2009 from Dr. Jeff Corntassel, Cherokee Professor in Indigenous Governance Masters Program at the University of Victoria (UVic), Canada, indigenous is the preferred designation which is recognized internationally. “Aboriginal” is the preferred designation by the government of Canada. First Nations neglects Métis and Inuit nations. However, certain literature uses First Nation, Aboriginal, and Indigenous interchangeably. For the purposes of this research indigenous will be used. When quoting source material the designation used in text will be utilized.
[2] Based on an interview with Dr. Jeff Corntassel, Cherokee Professor
in Indigenous Governance Masters Program at UVic, Canada. Indigenous peoples should not be seen merely as stakeholders, as their prior occupation of territory and relationship with land makes them more important than stakeholders. Not being stakeholders helps in differentiating their claims. While the term “stakeholder” will be employed in this paper, this nuance should be kept in mind when reference is made to indigenous peoples as stakeholders.
-----------------------
Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Alberta’s Oil Sands:
The Roles of Corporations and the State.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- research paper template for word
- research paper template pdf
- research paper outline template blank
- research paper outline template pdf
- research paper template doc
- apa research paper template pdf
- research paper template download
- technical white paper template word
- white paper template word download
- white paper template government
- apa research paper outline template word
- apa research paper template download